L'Affaire Colbert
Apparently, the blogosphere is buzzing, or burning, or otherwise in the throes of alliteration over the "Colbert Affair." Which, if said with an authentic French affectation, kind of rhymes.
In case you're not a total dork (you're reading this blog, so the chances are not in your favor...), I'm talking about Stephen Colbert's performance on Saturday at the White House Correspondent's Association dinner. All I have to say is: I hope he's paid his taxes, because he is SO gonna get audited. That is, if he doesn't end up in a grave more shallow that the journalism jokes made by the W and his doppelganger, which, the President might have been disappointed to learn, is not a new menu item at Burger King.
First, I should confess that I did not actually watch the televised dinner on C-Span. Nor did I even download it onto my phone or iPod - and not just because I don't know how.
The thing is, politicians attempting to be funny is somehow not in the natural order of things. It's kind of like people who dress their kids up to look like Joan Collins circa 1986, and force them to sing "Papa Don't Preach" at the Junior Miss Pagent. It's supposed to be cute, but it really just makes everyone involved feel a bit uncomfortable.
So I didn't watch the show. But just because I have no "first-hand knowledge" of the event in question does not mean that I'm not entitled, as both an American and a member of the Blogosphere (both of which, fortuantely, require zero credentials), to have a strongly held opinion on the matter. After all, I did read at least two other blog entries on the subject ...
However, I did read the transcript, which I thought was brilliant - especially the White House press conference parody. That is, I thought it was hilarious until it occured to me that they might have gotten lazy and just copied the transcript of an actual White House press conference, because it was so much like the real thing. But nevermind.
On a few conservative blogs, I learned Stephen Colbert is not just a slanderous, disloyal traitor whose heinous treason should be subjected to the Death Penalty, which, thanks to the Godless New Yorkers, is not legal in New York. More importantly, I learned that people in the audience on Saturday weren't laughing - not because they were afraid of being audited or having their wives exposed as CIA operatives - but because it "objectively," and "in all seriousness," "just wasn't funny."
Let's face it - if you're liberal, you thought it was hilarious. If you're conservative, you didn't think it was hilarious, and only in part it didn't involve The Family Circus or a precocious black child. While watching Colbert, you might have been thinking: Why can't there be more shows like "Home Improvement" and "Family Matters"? That Urkel. He was a hoot ...
The dividing line on this issue seems fairly obvious. What gets me is how the main thrust of the argument - on both sides - was whether it was or was not "inherently funny." A huge debate ensued over the nature of satire and comedy. Someone says something that ruffles the feathers of the powers that be, and all of a sudden everybody's friggin' Aristotle. Conveniently, the debate was not over the content, but the categorical semiotics of the content - whether it is or is-not humorous. Overnight, everyone with a a newspaper column or a blog has a Ph.D. from Komedy Kollege.
Take Richard Cohen's article in The Washington Post. He begins:
First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy. This is well known in certain circles, which is why, even back in elementary school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to "say something funny" -- as if the deed could be done on demand. This, anyway, is my standing for stating that Stephen Colbert was not funny at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. "
The problem with the rest of the article is that Cohen's introductory statement is, inherently, false.
Rule #1: If you have to say, "I am a funny guy" - you're not (as anyone who's ever attempted online dating can confirm). It's like the TV movies with the overly expository dialouge. "Mindy, you're my wife. I know you love me even though we've been having trouble in our relationship since my tire business failed last year. Anyway, I know it was wrong of me to cheat on you, but I really hope you won't use those Ginzu knives (close up: GINZU KNIVES, chopping a suitably phallic vegetable) in the third act to chop off my scrotum."
The rest of his article was equally unfunny, which is kind of ironic. But not in the funny-ironic sense, just in the "Americans don't really understand the definition of irony" sense.
One possible definition of irony, for instance, is Tucker Carlson telling us that Colbert was "unfunny." This is kind of like Tucker calling someone "white."
Anyway. What people do know - what Freud and Aristotle knew, what the Pope knows (but won't let on) - is that that humor is serious business. And deeply subversive. But that doesn't meant that anything is, or isn't "inherently funny."
Except the Germans. And bacon.
In case you're not a total dork (you're reading this blog, so the chances are not in your favor...), I'm talking about Stephen Colbert's performance on Saturday at the White House Correspondent's Association dinner. All I have to say is: I hope he's paid his taxes, because he is SO gonna get audited. That is, if he doesn't end up in a grave more shallow that the journalism jokes made by the W and his doppelganger, which, the President might have been disappointed to learn, is not a new menu item at Burger King.
First, I should confess that I did not actually watch the televised dinner on C-Span. Nor did I even download it onto my phone or iPod - and not just because I don't know how.
The thing is, politicians attempting to be funny is somehow not in the natural order of things. It's kind of like people who dress their kids up to look like Joan Collins circa 1986, and force them to sing "Papa Don't Preach" at the Junior Miss Pagent. It's supposed to be cute, but it really just makes everyone involved feel a bit uncomfortable.
So I didn't watch the show. But just because I have no "first-hand knowledge" of the event in question does not mean that I'm not entitled, as both an American and a member of the Blogosphere (both of which, fortuantely, require zero credentials), to have a strongly held opinion on the matter. After all, I did read at least two other blog entries on the subject ...
However, I did read the transcript, which I thought was brilliant - especially the White House press conference parody. That is, I thought it was hilarious until it occured to me that they might have gotten lazy and just copied the transcript of an actual White House press conference, because it was so much like the real thing. But nevermind.
On a few conservative blogs, I learned Stephen Colbert is not just a slanderous, disloyal traitor whose heinous treason should be subjected to the Death Penalty, which, thanks to the Godless New Yorkers, is not legal in New York. More importantly, I learned that people in the audience on Saturday weren't laughing - not because they were afraid of being audited or having their wives exposed as CIA operatives - but because it "objectively," and "in all seriousness," "just wasn't funny."
Let's face it - if you're liberal, you thought it was hilarious. If you're conservative, you didn't think it was hilarious, and only in part it didn't involve The Family Circus or a precocious black child. While watching Colbert, you might have been thinking: Why can't there be more shows like "Home Improvement" and "Family Matters"? That Urkel. He was a hoot ...
The dividing line on this issue seems fairly obvious. What gets me is how the main thrust of the argument - on both sides - was whether it was or was not "inherently funny." A huge debate ensued over the nature of satire and comedy. Someone says something that ruffles the feathers of the powers that be, and all of a sudden everybody's friggin' Aristotle. Conveniently, the debate was not over the content, but the categorical semiotics of the content - whether it is or is-not humorous. Overnight, everyone with a a newspaper column or a blog has a Ph.D. from Komedy Kollege.
Take Richard Cohen's article in The Washington Post. He begins:
First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy. This is well known in certain circles, which is why, even back in elementary school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to "say something funny" -- as if the deed could be done on demand. This, anyway, is my standing for stating that Stephen Colbert was not funny at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. "
The problem with the rest of the article is that Cohen's introductory statement is, inherently, false.
Rule #1: If you have to say, "I am a funny guy" - you're not (as anyone who's ever attempted online dating can confirm). It's like the TV movies with the overly expository dialouge. "Mindy, you're my wife. I know you love me even though we've been having trouble in our relationship since my tire business failed last year. Anyway, I know it was wrong of me to cheat on you, but I really hope you won't use those Ginzu knives (close up: GINZU KNIVES, chopping a suitably phallic vegetable) in the third act to chop off my scrotum."
The rest of his article was equally unfunny, which is kind of ironic. But not in the funny-ironic sense, just in the "Americans don't really understand the definition of irony" sense.
One possible definition of irony, for instance, is Tucker Carlson telling us that Colbert was "unfunny." This is kind of like Tucker calling someone "white."
Anyway. What people do know - what Freud and Aristotle knew, what the Pope knows (but won't let on) - is that that humor is serious business. And deeply subversive. But that doesn't meant that anything is, or isn't "inherently funny."
Except the Germans. And bacon.
posted by Marguerite at 9:13 AM
2 Comments:
An anagram of "copyright infringement" is "fetching, merry pointing". Think about it and it all becomes clear.
It's the C-SPAN Code! Someone call Dan Brown! Maybe Colbert is actually descended from those Merovingian kings who were supposedly the descendents of Mary Magdalene and Christ ... Maybe he's a member of the Priory of Sion, and this is C-SPAN's way of telling the world (merry pointing.. fetching... hmmm).
And have you noticed that you don't see a lot of people creating fan sites for the Bush/Doppelganger schtick, for instance. Perhaps because it was *inherently* un-funny? Not that I'm biased or anything.
Post a Comment
<< Home