Stand-Up Comedy
Society
| January 31, 2010
| Tim
I was subjected to stand-up comedy Friday night. I say "subjected to" because I love the form, when done (what I consider) well, but you have to know the right place and people. Otherwise it tends to devolve to one part cleverness, two or three parts obsession with bodily functions and sex.
Politically, stand-up comedy seems to generally re-enforce whatever leftist dogmas are in vogue. Friday night was filled with contradictions. I heard how terrible it was to oppose gay marriage in California, and lots of jibes at Denver's alleged discomfort with racial differences. Message received: It's bad to hate or look down people who are different than you.
Um, except not: The comedians also relentlessly made fun of Wal-Mart shoppers, particularly arguing that many of them were handicapped — mocking the distorted forms of people with clubbed feet, the mentally retarded, etc. Well, yes: generally people with infirmities have trouble making as high an income, so they tend to shop at stores which will give them more affordable merchandise. Meaning Wal-Mart. (Har har.) The Duggers were also mentioned, and Christians in general came up for repeated comedic thrashings.
The message, overall?
So, yeah, it's bad to hate. Except, um, this group over here. Look how stupid they all are. And this other group. Wow, are they stupid. And hateful. Because they don't like people who are different than themselves. Unlike me. Gosh, I hate them for that.
The crowd loved it.
A friend of mine is a comedienne. What's interesting about the profession is how much more one gets paid for a g-rated routine (I can't remember exact figures, but it was fairly substantial... 40% to 300% more) as compared to an r-rated one. But the g-rated routines are harder to write.
Re: G-rated routines. Wow! I had no idea.
Makes sense, though: that parallels a fight conservative critic Michael Medved used to have with Hollywood back in the eighties. Industry defenders user to justify the profusion of R-rated movies by saying that was what audiences wanted, and that's where the money was. Medved went back and showed that G-rated films made a lot more, on average, and that the top-grossing films tended to be G-rated.
As one of the old execs from MGM used to say: "Why sell two movie tickets when you can sell four?"
But the g-rated routines are harder to write.
No doubt!
The reason for the alleged contradiction is simple. The goal in a stand-up routine isn't to create a philosophically and ideologically sound explanation of the universe; it's to make people LAUGH.
Since people laugh at absurdities, unexpected turns, flights of fancy, and other silliness, it's rare that such things follow a concise and level-headed doctrine of any kind.
If you only laugh at logically consistent diatribes that must mirror exactly your own personal socio-political idiosyncrasies, then good luck enjoying a night at a comedy club.
I've made jokes in the past that haven't really jibed with my own personal views on a subject, but I've said them out loud because...they were funny and got a laugh. I've also laughed at jokes whose underlying premise didn't necessarily jibe with my views on the subject because I was caught off guard and the comedian was talented.
You should learn to lighten up and enjoy the humor for what it was meant to do: make you laugh.
The reason for the alleged contradiction is simple. The goal in a stand-up routine isn't to create a philosophically and ideologically sound explanation of the universe; it's to make people LAUGH.
Er, um, forgive me, but I had no idea that honesty and comedy were at odds! Its only funny when you lie? Strangely, I find it hilarious when the truth is presented in a refreshing and honest perspective.
I realize this doesn't work for everyone. Fifth graders, for example, find it hilarious when one says: "Here's Jenny! She's a big fat cow! Mooo! MOOOO!!!" (Despite the fact Jenny is, in fact, pretty much average size.)
You're right: if that's your idea of "funny" then I'm "no fun" at all. Guilty!
But I think you're wrong: Nobody's laughing because of the "contradiction" (which I pronounce: "hyporcrisy") "WOW! He said it was bad to hate and then hated on those peepuls! Hehehe! That was funny the way he contradicts himself!"
I honestly don't think most the crowd was aware they were being led into some pretty hypocritical and hateful worldviews.
If you only laugh at logically consistent diatribes that must mirror exactly your own personal socio-political idiosyncrasies, then good luck enjoying a night at a comedy club.
Let me ask you a simple question "Mr Crispy": Some white guy on stage tells a string of really hilarious, but also rather nasty anti-black racist jokes, laden with degrading imagery and the N-word. Do you laugh? I'd love to know.
If you do, well, doesn't that make you a racist?
If you don't, doesn't that mean you're contradicting your own alleged standards here?
Like I said, I'd love to know.
Seems to me that at some point, everyone's gotta draw the line. And even if you find something funny (for the record, I also laugh at things I disagree with) it doesn't mean one has to suspend all judgment about whether that humor is working to good or harmful effect.
Which is what seems to be bugging you here.
Sorry I didn't have a good time yucking it up about poor handicapped people. Bad me. Good thing you're here to condemn me for it. :-)
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« "Discrimination" |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Disney Continues to Oppress »
|
A friend of mine is a comedienne. What's interesting about the profession is how much more one gets paid for a g-rated routine (I can't remember exact figures, but it was fairly substantial... 40% to 300% more) as compared to an r-rated one. But the g-rated routines are harder to write.
Posted by: Ryan W. on January 31, 2010 05:46 PM