The Critical Comic

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

Tig Notaro on Comedy and Release

Posted on September 10, 2017 by nwilson

Though she gives a brilliant interview to Ashley Hoffman of Time (8/25/2017), Tig Notaro only briefly mentions something that touches on my theme here: the idea of comedy as a release. It’s just a short blurb, but the first question of the interview is:

How do you see the relationship between personal tragedy and humor?

They go hand and hand. It’s hard for me to imagine digesting everything without a comedic release. That’s what I use to cope. It’s crucial for my peace of mind.

So here again we see the popular notion that people are pressure cookers of pain and grief and angst, and it’s up to humor to let off some steam before we explode in a cloud of gunfire. Yes, I’m trying to be more funny on here.

I only bring this up, because the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes,

Having sketched several versions of the Relief Theory, we can note that today almost no scholar in philosophy or psychology explains laughter or humor as a process of releasing pent-up nervous energy…. [F]ew contemporary scholars defend the claims of Spencer and Freud that the energy expended in laughter is the energy of feeling emotions, the energy of repressing emotions, or the energy of thinking, which have built up and require venting.

Despite the fact that scholar’s don’t use it, I follow Michel Foucault in arguing that if the idea is still part of the popular discourse formation of humor, still part of the way people understand humor’s effect on their lives, then it’s worth discussing in more detail. And here is more evidence that it’s still around.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

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

Reggie Watts, Stand-Up Comedian?

Posted on September 9, 2017 by nwilson

Same ol’, same ol’

I watch stand-up sporadically, sometimes going on binges where everything I watch is stand-up, sometimes taking a long hiatus. Sometimes, I’m just not in the mood. Therefore, I agree with Jake Larsen of The Daily Nebraskan (8/25/2017) that stand-up can seem repetitive. As he has it,

Each stand-up special is the same one-hour show filmed in some upscale theater, telling written jokes with a little bit of interaction and physical humor, if you’re lucky. The only one that broke this endless loop was Reggie Watts’ “Spatial.”

It’s true, if we limit our idea of stand-up, as most comics seem to, to Caty Borum Chattoo’s definition:

A comic stands on stage and entertains a live audience with jokes and social commentary, with minimal or no props.

If we embrace this definition, it doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room for variations. In that framework (and having watched “Spatial” myself), we can understand why Larsen calls Watts’ act a “bizarre style of comedy,” filled with “uncommon occurrence[s].”

What is stand-up?

Larsen doesn’t recommend Watts for everyone:

[I]t can just be too off-the-wall for a lot of people. The stand-up could be equated to a Jackson Pollock painting. Some people may find a strange beauty in “Spatial,” while others will wonder how this was ever given the green light.

There is this implicit feeling one gets in stand-up, that those who do anything different from telling jokes are “less than.” I’ve seen people get up at open mics and try to do slapstick, stories or skits, and they are not well-received – even when the material is good.

The format for open mics doesn’t lend itself even to story forms. Try to develop a humorous plot and characters inside five minutes (or three). It can be done, but it’s harder than telling 10 dick jokes.

The guy who runs the mic at the local comedy club has said it flat out, “We want standard jokes: set-up, punchline, with a laugh every 20-30 seconds.” So you can tell your humorous anecdote, keep the audience smiling for the whole five, with a big laugh at the climax, but you won’t get invited to perform as the opener for any named comic.

So I understand the resistance to Watts’ off-beat act. However, I stop short of agreeing with Larsen that, “it is something completely different from any stand-up I have ever seen,” or that he’s “the most bizarre.” Emo Philips is bizarre, and he tells straight jokes.

Nor do I agree that,

I think performance artist is a more appropriate title for Watts…

I’ve been around a while, and I also know (and have written on this blog) that Lawrence E. Mintz expands his definition of stand-up to include,

[A]n encounter between a single, standing performer behaving comically and/or saying funny things directly to an audience (71).

That switch from “jokes and social commentary,” to “behaving comically and/or saying funny things” is huge, as it includes slapstick, humorous stories (when they don’t have social commentary), puppets, prop comedy, etc. Under this definition, Watts is not a “performance artist,” but securely within the fold of stand-up.

Larsen also says,

Watts’s style of humor makes me laugh at just how ridiculous it is, not necessarily because of a premise or a joke.

But why we laugh isn’t as important as that we laugh. That then begs the question: how important is that laugh?

Are laughs necessary?

Perhaps most damning is Larsen’s assertion that,

[M]ost things [Watts] does generates more of a “wow” or “what did I just see?” reaction than a laugh.

This idea is problematic, as I myself have followed John Limon in defining stand-up as a form that primarily seeks laughter. However, just failing to get a laugh every time is not disqualifying – and Larsen states that he did laugh, at times.

If we define the “wow” or “what?” reaction as an enjoyable shock – as opposed to one that is not enjoyable, as we experience with “gross out” humor – we could note that such shock can be a precursor to humor; people often laugh when they experience a shock that they enjoy. That they sometimes don’t doesn’t make the act any less enjoyable.

Summary

My reasoning runs thus: If storytellers can be stand-up comics (and they can), and if stories can inspire other emotions than humor – as long as they inspire humor too – (and they’d better, or risk being one-note), then any performer who frequently inspires humor is a stand-up comic. Yes, the form is primarily verbal and needs an audience, but it doesn’t require strict jokes or social commentary. It just needs to be funny sometimes and enjoyable most times.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

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

Daniel Fernandes on Comedy as Art

Posted on September 8, 2017 by nwilson

A lot of comics express (perhaps unknowingly) the idea that audiences are passive objects that they “make laugh,” and Daniel Fernandes is another one – and his goal is every 30 seconds. In his interview with Punita Maheshwari of edexlive.com (8/28/2017), Fernandes has some brief answer about stand-up.

Truth telling

When asked about threats in response to his political remarks, Fernandes responds,

Not really. My writing is very layered. There is some truth to it. A lot of people are doing this.

So, Fernandes is not one of those who argues that he’s telling the complete truth, though there may be some.

Comic intent

Continuing, Fernandes says,

Plus, to attack my jokes, they need to understand them first. Moreover, comedians are the only people without any agenda. Our only job is to call out bullshit.

The ordering of this seems to say that his layering displays that he doesn’t have an agenda, but we could note that perhaps his execution of the humor obscures his agenda and thus prevents blow-back. Because comics aren’t supposed to have an agenda, other than to produce laughter, they frequently get away with it when they have one. After all, isn’t “calling out bullshit” an act with potential political and social consequences?

On “censorship”

Although Maheswari moves on to another point, Fernandes seems stuck on the previous, he says,

When you look at it in terms of an art form, there is no censorship and no restrictions.

We should note that there are many countries where there is censorship and restrictions on free speech, in any form including art. Further, we’re coming off a discussion about how he layers his jokes, perhaps to prevent such attacks. So no, comics and comedy don’t operate in a play space without rules that allows them to speak truth to power – unless they meet certain criteria that we grant them, and those criteria are always being reassessed and readjusted.

Summary

Yes, this is a short piece and perhaps I’m nitpicking. However, I do so here because my goal in this blog is to display how widespread these notions are. They crop up in far more articles than I have time and space to address. The “make people laugh” metaphor is so pervasive and insidious that I couldn’t possible document them all. I note it in pieces like this, but if it’s the only thing in an article, I pass it by. Much more exciting is when people say something different, and I try to get at those as well, but it didn’t happen here.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

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

Michelle Wolf Isn’t Trying to Change the World

Posted on September 7, 2017 by nwilson

But perhaps she should be. I talk a lot on this blog about what comedy can do, and my main soapbox is that it can do whatever we let it do. If comics tried to do more, and audiences expected more, more could be done.

Comic intent

Counter to this, Mae Yen Yap of the Post, Athens (8/26/2017) quotes Michelle Wolf as saying,

My first priority is to make people laugh. If they get something out of it, great. But I’m not trying to change the world.

So we can put Wolf in that category of comic intent where laughter is the first and most important goal. However, is that what the audience wants?

Expectations of the comic

On the other hand, a student, Edwin Quarcoo, “appreciated how Wolf’s style of comedy tackled serious social problems while presenting the topic in a way that is entertaining but accurate.”

That’s why I watch The Daily Show — because the news is too serious for me. I like to hear things from many perspectives, and it’s great to hear (about social issues) because the truth is in there, but it still makes you laugh.

If we listen to audience members like this, who Young argued are a growing demographic, then we see that people can and do expect multiple things from stand-up. Perhaps they go to different shows for different reasons, but they do go to shows like Wolf’s, and that should tell the comics that there’s more that can be done.

Yes, keep it funny, but don’t hesitate to make some points along the way.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

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

Marlon Wayans on Truth in Stand-Up

Posted on September 6, 2017 by nwilson

I’ve talked a lot on this blog about whether stand-ups tell the truth about their lives. Of course some do, but most fudge a bit. Even among those who give us the straight story, they frequently don’t tell all of it. However, the myth of stand-up as a space where one speaks one’s truth, especially to power, persists. In an interview with Kevin C. Johnson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (8/23/2017), Marlon Wayans feeds this myth.

I’m a free spirit. And when you’re doing comedy, you’re supposed to be naked — not care. And that’s an example where I didn’t care. I just want to make people laugh.

Marlon’ is a project I’ve been wanting to do for a long time. I have to figure out how to take comedy and my life and bring it to the screen. Comedians successfully do their lives and personalities, but I wanted to make sure it’s about me. That’s what was most important to me.

Of course we shouldn’t miss his model of audiences as objects that he can “make laugh.” However, what’s with this idea that he’s “making sure it’s about me”?

The funny thing is, Johnson calls him out on his creative license, noting that “the show” is only “loosely based on his own life,” as it “is about a divorced couple co-parenting their children. (In real life, Wayans wasn’t married to the mother of his children.)”

So despite Marlon wanting this to be a truth telling act, it’s still served with a layer of fudge.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

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

Jeff Foxworthy and Tension Release

Posted on September 5, 2017 by nwilson

In an interview with Edward Pevos of MLive (8/22/2017), Jeff Foxworthy describes his theory of humor in a way that resonates with the Relief theory of humor:

I always said with comedy that it’s the release valve that keeps the boiler from exploding. When I stand on stage, I can look at the audience. From time to time I have the thought that everybody here is going through some kind of struggle. Whether it’s financial or health issues… being able to laugh a little bit almost lets you recharge the batteries and go deal with it again. Music is kind of the same way. It’s a little bit of that escape.

Of course, like most comics, he’s mixing his metaphors. Apparently, his model is more like a steam engine, powering a device that recharges our batteries.

Another noteworthy point is that while Foxworthy does use the “make them laugh” phrase – which maps to a popular idea of the audience as objects acted upon – once in the interview, he more frequently talks about “learn[ing] what people are going to laugh at,” the new joke “got a great laugh,” displaying the audience as active participants.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

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?