the whole colbert thing

[rone]

Amidst the fawning of the moonbats and the shrill criticism of the wingnuts over Colbert's performance, the point is lost that satire isn't necessarily funny.  I thought Colbert's speech was really well delivered and hit all the spots it wanted.  Chutzpah, yes.  Courage, no.  Biting satire, yes.  Funny, rarely.  To claim that Colbert "was hilarious" or "bombed" is to misunderstand what he was doing; it wasn't stand-up, it was put-down.

And while one person thinks that "it's a failing prospect to attempt to direct satire at those who are beyond it," i say that perhaps he's confused about who the satire is directed at.  While Bush and the media were the subjects of the satire, that doesn't mean that they're the targets.  The target is, as always, the American people.  (Yes, i know, "But they're beyond satire!"  I disagree.)

Comments

[frosch.livejournal.com]

It took me about a week to get tired of Colbert and his Report. The message is unidimensional, and pretty shallow: "Bill O'Reilly is an arrogant, self-absorbed asshole." I can't stand O'Reilly (whom I occasionally have to watch at the gym), and I don't have much more stomach for Colbert pretending to be O'Reilly.

Colbert really isn't even in the business of going after Bush (that's Jon Stewart's gig), which is probably why he got invited. What makes Colbert's act satire rather than blowjob is the context in which it is delivered; you can't watch Comedy Central after 10PM without being conscious that the studio audience overwhelmingly and sincerely believes that Bush and his entire administration are arrogant, bumbling goons. Without that, there's nothing there; you might as well be watching O'Reilly or Hannity on Fox News.

Of course, once he accepted the invitation to speak, Colbert had to lay on extra BJ and focus on Bush, but the interesting thing about all this hue and cry is that it's not so much about the content of what was said, but about the political bona fides (or lack thereof) of the man who said it, and his perceived insincerity. There wasn't much in that speech that couldn't have come out of Tony Snow's mouth three weeks ago.

[(Anonymous)]

oh, and the reaction of the press corps audience was the modern-day Washington equivalent of the standing ovations Stalin used to get at party congresses.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

The message is unidimensional, and pretty shallow: "Bill O'Reilly is an arrogant, self-absorbed asshole."

Colbert's character isn't parodying O'Reilly in particular. His character is "a direct, deeply mocking parody of right-wing political pundit programs". That means O'Reilly but it also means Scarborough, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and most other loudmouths you can name. O'Reilly is a symptom of a larger plauge.

Colbert's value to me is in illustrating how easy it is to take the hyperpatriotic, hyperconservative, blame-the-victim approach to every political quandry - and how sadly hiliarious that approach actually is. For example last week it was hilarious to watch him interivew William Kristol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol) and back him into a corner by out-conservatizing him. "What are you, some kind of coward? Why can't we just drop nukes on Iran this very minute?" It's highly amusing to watch a conservative guest being attacked for not being conservative enough - it puts his guests in the unique position of actually having to moderate their views and explain how far is too far rather than simply advocating extremism.

Colbert is the great dictator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator) lampooning the dozens of little dictators on TV and radio. I appreciate his schtick.

[frosch.livejournal.com]

but it also means Scarborough, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and most other loudmouths you can name.

I understand that that's what he's trying to do. What I'm saying is that his show is too closely modeled on O'Reilly's to translate well to the general case.

And even if we grant that he's talking about Scarborough et al too, it got old a long time ago, at least for me. I watched this for three weeks, I get it. Now can we have something funny back, please?

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

I watched this for three weeks, I get it. Now can we have something funny back, please?

People don't watch O'Reilly because they don't yet get his schtick, they watch O'Reilly to hear his perspective on the news.

People don't watch John Stewart because they don't yet get his schtick, they watch Stewart to hear his perspective on the news.

People don't watch Colbert because they don't yet get his schtick, they Colbert to hear his perspective on the news.

All three have different perspectives on different news stories. One continues to watch all three because there continues to be new news for each one to comment on.

If you truly "get" Colbert already then perhaps you can predict what he's going to say this evening about the Day Without An Immigrant protests. I can't. That's why I'm going to watch.

[frosch.livejournal.com]

All three have different perspectives on different news stories. One continues to watch all three because there continues to be new news for each one to comment on.

Or not. I don't watch O'Reilly, because I have no respect for either the man or his opinions. I don't watch Colbert, because he's neither sincere (as he admitted to Morley Safer) nor funny. I don't have any reason to personally dislike Colbert, who is obviously an immensely talented man - I just think this show, with this character, is a bad idea. I wish he'd spend the time he puts into this into producing more animation.

Sometimes I watch Jon Stewart, because he *is* funny most of the time, and even when he's not being funny, he has non-trivial intelligent opinions, and meaningful conversations with interesting guests. I think he was a very bad match for the Oscars, but I enjoy his show.

[wisn.livejournal.com]

> People don't watch John Stewart because they don't yet get his schtick, they watch Stewart to hear his perspective on the news.

Respectfully disagree.