This boom and bust overlaps conspicuously with the political career of one Donald J. Trump. In theory, Trump should be the best thing that ever happened to liberal comedy. Five years ago, when he announced his candidacy after descending an escalator in a mall/apartment complex bearing his name, it briefly appeared as if he might be. Like so many others, this hope has not panned out. Maybe it’s the glut; in any form of humor, from sitcoms to barroom remarks, overproduction causes trouble. But there is also a sense, as the president talks openly about defying the results of the election, that satire has not accomplished what its champions believed it could. Even the professionals seem disillusioned. Before his show, Oliver took questions from the audience, and I asked him what comedy was like under this administration. “People say it writes itself — the worst kind of comedy,” he said. “As a human being and a comedian, I cannot wait for this to be over.”
The phenomenon of a president whose person is ridiculous even as he imposes reactionary policies is not unprecedented in the 21st century. “The Daily Show” thrived in a similar ecosystem under George W. Bush, who combined funny behavior (“misunderestimated,” mortal combat against pretzel) with an extremely unfunny policy agenda (“enhanced interrogation,” invasion of Iraq). The ability of “The Daily Show” to balance the political demands of its moment with the aesthetic demands of the half-hour comedy program — while simultaneously making millions of dollars — was a success that basic cable has struggled to replicate ever since.
More specifically:
Now this format faces an identity crisis, for two reasons. First, the media does not play along with President Trump; it is openly contemptuous of him, in a way that shunts comedians out of saying what we’re all thinking and into the more difficult position of topping what we’re all saying. Second, Trump’s success has proved that pointing out hypocrisy doesn’t work — not, at least, as a way to thwart the hypocrite. As a way to attract the 18-to-34 demographic, it remains a reliable tactic.
There are a couple of worthwhile insights:
The Trump-era liberal comedy show, on the other hand, casts its host not as a sharp-tongued outsider but as the leader of a righteous movement.
Everyone involved seems to accept that this movement is only a conceit.
Ultimately his argument is
Thinking about the difficulty of making political comedy that jibed with a broad audience, I asked if there was a type of joke they had learned not to do.
I was surprised when Flanz whispered “sarcasm,” but Amira readily agreed: “People are so emotionally invested … ” he said, trailing off for a second. “You almost have to not couch things in sarcasm, because people will momentarily wonder if you’re not on their side.”
Nodding, Flanz added, “We have to signal to the audience, ‘Hey, we know how you’re feeling,’ so it doesn’t seem like you’re making light of a serious thing.” Yet making light of serious things is the definition of political comedy. Here lies the problem facing “The Daily Show” and its offspring: Consumers of this brand of comedy are so horrified by Trump that irreverence can feel like betrayal.
Not much of an argument and I am more interested in the tidbits along the way as well as the overall epistemic closure.
I have never been a fan of any of the shows Brooks mentioned. Conan had his moments. But largely it has always seemed to me to be narrow-casting specializing in vitriolic acerbity in which the ritualistic sacrifice of the dignity of others was the primary entertainment. Bludgeoning rather than bon mots.
You have to subscribe to the worldview of the comedian in order to derive any entertainment. There is no attempt to speak to a general audience. Instead, it is a bunch of relatively low talents trying to elicit sniggers and hoo-haws from a young, urban, college educated, audience of establishment left and Bernie Bros believers. Its a demographic and it pays well but its appeal is . . . selective.
What is striking to me is that Brooks writes the article to the same audience. He makes a number of assertions which are factually questionable but which he is comfortable assuming as an article of faith.
Its too bad because I think there are several general audience questions which could have been incorporated. Why the decline in general audience entertainment? I think the answer is cable but it would have been interesting to get an objective insider's view.
Why have there never been any conservative equivalent shows to John Stewart's the daily Show? As Brooks mentions, in the age of the internet and Youtube channels, etc. there are a lot of right leaning comedians but they never seem to break into the establishment channels.
Why are there no centrist or bipartisan comedians who can appeal to the broad middle?
Where does class fit into this analysis? A lot of right leaning comedians seem more working class oriented than they do conservative per se.
Lots of interesting topics but Brooks, as is true for the NYTs overall, is really speaking only to a small sliver of the public.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment