the whole colbert thing
May. 1st, 2006 10:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
roneAmidst 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.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 08:16 pm (UTC)It sounds like it was impressive, awkward, and dangerous.
I love Stephen Colbert.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 08:38 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 08:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 09:07 pm (UTC)I contend that Colbert's target was not the Bush administration or the American people so much as his target was the White House Press Corps itself, which invited him to entertain them. I think the Press Corps disliked being mocked a lot more than the administration. The administration has the comfortable knowledge that it doesn't matter how many laughs the court jester gets if the King still rules. The press corps, on the other hand, had its own hypocrisy about its sacred mythology rudely rubbed in its collective face. Of course, they weren't laughing— they were the butt of all the jokes.
And they knew it. The administration is beyond satire because they know maintaining their power doesn't depend on suppressing it. On the other hand, the press corps lives and dies on its credibility. They are not beyond satire, and they knew they were on the receiving end of it.
"I have nothing but contempt for these people [the White House Press Corresspondents]." —Steven Colbert, explaining why he wanted to the White House Press Secretary.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 09:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 09:35 pm (UTC)Not quite "dangerous" since it's not like the Secret Service was going to tackle him and send him to Guantanamo, but it was definitely awkard, impressive, and took ENORMOUS COLBERT BALLS.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 09:49 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 09:52 pm (UTC)If I were Peter Pace, on the other hand, I would be PISSED.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 10:00 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 10:06 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 10:08 pm (UTC)colbert
Date: 2006-05-01 10:16 pm (UTC)And we can talk about the phrase "beyond satire" if you want to.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 10:16 pm (UTC)That was my take on it, too.
Date: 2006-05-01 10:18 pm (UTC)The press in the US has been pissing its belly for years now.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 10:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 10:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 11:27 pm (UTC)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.
Re: That was my take on it, too.
Date: 2006-05-01 11:45 pm (UTC)The press is not "beyond satire", not so full of themselves as to be oblivious. Like George Bush, they know when they're being skewered.
Like George Bush, most of them don't have to care.
what was it that Jon Stewart shareed...
Date: 2006-05-02 02:06 am (UTC)back when it was the Tucker Carlson and his boy toy the Bleaters of CIA Assets, before the later took a powder from CNN, and the former decided to take his ButtMonkeyWays off to play the alledged conservative over at MSNBC....
Jon Stewart does CNN (http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831)
no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 11:15 am (UTC)Respectfully disagree.
Re: what was it that Jon Stewart shareed...
Date: 2006-05-02 01:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 01:13 pm (UTC)The fact that I haven't bothered to watch the actual video or whatever doesn't really help, but the whole thing is too bewildering for me to even want to try that.
So far, I've gathered that this is about people arguing if the court jester is funny or not. Is that it?
Re: what was it that Jon Stewart shareed...
Date: 2006-05-02 01:16 pm (UTC)"Crossfire" went on for far too long. By the end of it, it had made Robert Novak a sneering caricature of what he had once been. It died not because Tucker Carlson lacked credibility as a journalist (which, admittedly, he does), but rather of its own patheticness as a form of entertainment, which is really all that TV news is about any more.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 04:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 04:15 pm (UTC)Re: what was it that Jon Stewart shareed...
Date: 2006-05-02 07:00 pm (UTC)Ok... what if you are simply WRONG?
that there IS no need for anything like 'integrity' when one is a Performance Artists, like Tucker Carlsen, or HanoiAnnie Coulter? That all one needs to be is a bleater of the Party Line!
Think about the grand stoopidity of the freaks over at townhall who want to play act as IF they are journalists, while at the same time supporting the folks who want to simply kill journalists because majikally journalists, like the 1st ammendment protections for a free press, are a threat.
So ending comedy shows like CrossFire or any of the other products out there where alledged conservatives are merely blind bleaters of the NeoCon Dogma is all that is required! No matter how much that Dogma rests on Hating America, and Hating those of us who served to keep it freee!!!
Hum???
Re: what was it that Jon Stewart shareed...
Date: 2006-05-02 07:01 pm (UTC)why do you hate america?
or are you just one more of those who is afraid of dealing with what is going on in america because you actually hope that majikally the great leader will protect you...
why do americans hate america?
Date: 2006-05-02 07:06 pm (UTC)I can understand that the typical person who thought that carlsen and his kriminal friend, remember it was Novak who blew up the CIA network dealing with Iranian Nuclear Proliferation, are the sort of Psuedo Conservatives who populate the NeoCon Movement - because they hate americans who actually served and were actively active in keeping you folks safe.
But of course, to put that back into play, along with the citation of when Jon Stewart Cracked on the Fiasco of the "crossfire" game - and that in the context of the MSM black out on dealing with it's horror from the Colbert stand up - is, gosh, well putting too many things into play for the typical America Hating NeoCon eh no???
Or is that also a part of the problem here.... The NeoCons are so not sure why they hate america, nor why they hate those of us who served while they sat on their faces, but clearly they like to hate america and the veterans community... But that is not really news - we have been watching that routine for over 20 years now... and it is only now that americans are wondering why their system is sinking...
no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 08:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 08:24 pm (UTC)1. Person gets invited to hold satirical performance in front of the president.
2. Person holds satirical performance in front of the president.
3. The internet goes, "Whoa! That guy totally held a satirical performance in front of the president!"
And then I go "?".
no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 08:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 09:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 09:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 09:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 10:05 pm (UTC)party lines
Date: 2006-05-03 06:43 am (UTC)It's not that successful satire isn't necessarily funny or that Colbert's satire was less than successful. It's that one side of those party lines has in the past 15 years or so become swarming with people unashamed to laugh out loud at photos of a girl soldier pointing at tortured brown-skinned prisoners' exposed genitals, people who think that masking their own self-aggrandizement in ostensibly self-mocking expressions like "dittohead" is wickedly funny while the humorist's tool (regardless of political stripe) of masking self-mockery in self-aggrandizement is just boastful, people whose sense of humor is on the level of chuckling at the schoolroom bully bashing the nerd in the face. Satirical humor from their own side would be just as lost on them.