Comments on: Make Me Laugh http://www.looksandbooks.com/2012/07/18/make-me-laugh/ Literary Fashion, Fashionable Lit Mon, 06 May 2013 18:53:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jill http://www.looksandbooks.com/2012/07/18/make-me-laugh/#comment-1995 Jill Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:38:31 +0000 http://www.looksandbooks.com/?p=2529#comment-1995 Yes, I remember that speech! It's especially impressive to make those commentaries at normally censored and bland awards shows where usually everyone is just so self-congratulatory. Comedy as social commentary is definitely valid, even if it's not inciting any revolutions. Yes, I remember that speech! It’s especially impressive to make those commentaries at normally censored and bland awards shows where usually everyone is just so self-congratulatory. Comedy as social commentary is definitely valid, even if it’s not inciting any revolutions.

]]> By: Monique http://www.looksandbooks.com/2012/07/18/make-me-laugh/#comment-1994 Monique Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:29:30 +0000 http://www.looksandbooks.com/?p=2529#comment-1994 I also disagree with Almond. These comedians are not the reason why people aren't taking it to the streets. Two people can't be blamed for the overall apathy that exists. I personally like it when comedians make social political commentaries. Especially since there are so many people that don't want to know what's going on in the news or don't seek to understand or know what's going on. Sort of a tangent... At the Oscar's Chris Rock presented the award for best animated film. In his intro he talked about the beauty of animation and how a large woman could play a thin princess and how a white woman could be an Arabian prince. He then made a statement about the state of racial affairs in this country. He said if you're a black man you could play a donkey or a zebra. He also commented on how animated film is "hard work". He's aware of what hard work truly is like stripping wood or working for UPS. See the video clip here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWsge7BtzQg I also disagree with Almond. These comedians are not the reason why people aren’t taking it to the streets. Two people can’t be blamed for the overall apathy that exists. I personally like it when comedians make social political commentaries. Especially since there are so many people that don’t want to know what’s going on in the news or don’t seek to understand or know what’s going on. Sort of a tangent… At the Oscar’s Chris Rock presented the award for best animated film. In his intro he talked about the beauty of animation and how a large woman could play a thin princess and how a white woman could be an Arabian prince. He then made a statement about the state of racial affairs in this country. He said if you’re a black man you could play a donkey or a zebra. He also commented on how animated film is “hard work”. He’s aware of what hard work truly is like stripping wood or working for UPS. See the video clip here

]]> By: Raquel http://www.looksandbooks.com/2012/07/18/make-me-laugh/#comment-1992 Raquel Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:53:32 +0000 http://www.looksandbooks.com/?p=2529#comment-1992 Your post is fantastic and spot on. Also, Steve Almond is a douche bag. Your post is fantastic and spot on. Also, Steve Almond is a douche bag.

]]> By: Rebekah http://www.looksandbooks.com/2012/07/18/make-me-laugh/#comment-1990 Rebekah Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:43:57 +0000 http://www.looksandbooks.com/?p=2529#comment-1990 yeah... I think all this emphasis on the social responsibility of comedy/entertainment is a little strange. is this a new thing, I am wondering? it's like culturally/generationally we had this a wave of apathy, and then we're reacting to that with a significant amount of attempted increased sincerity (in my opinion), but, like, come on guys let's not try to run a marathon after sitting on our asses eating potato chips for however long. let's be proud we're running a mile, at least! yeah… I think all this emphasis on the social responsibility of comedy/entertainment is a little strange. is this a new thing, I am wondering? it’s like culturally/generationally we had this a wave of apathy, and then we’re reacting to that with a significant amount of attempted increased sincerity (in my opinion), but, like, come on guys let’s not try to run a marathon after sitting on our asses eating potato chips for however long. let’s be proud we’re running a mile, at least!

]]> By: Katie http://www.looksandbooks.com/2012/07/18/make-me-laugh/#comment-1987 Katie Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:03:45 +0000 http://www.looksandbooks.com/?p=2529#comment-1987 I absolutely hate Steve Almond. He taught at my college for awhile and although I never had him, on our school professor rating system he had horrible reviews, and he ended up quitting via an op-ed in the Boston Globe (you can read it here: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0512-20.htm) over Condoleezza Rice being my class's graduation speaker. (I have my own thoughts on that that I blogged about awhile ago- http://strugglingsingletwentysomething.blogspot.com/2009/05/along-with-death-and-taxes.html.) So, basically, I don't take anything he writes seriously. He's a douche. You're right; he's wrong. And although I don't watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Report very often, I think both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are awesome. I absolutely hate Steve Almond. He taught at my college for awhile and although I never had him, on our school professor rating system he had horrible reviews, and he ended up quitting via an op-ed in the Boston Globe (you can read it here: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0512-20.htm) over Condoleezza Rice being my class’s graduation speaker. (I have my own thoughts on that that I blogged about awhile ago- http://strugglingsingletwentysomething.blogspot.com/2009/05/along-with-death-and-taxes.html.)

So, basically, I don’t take anything he writes seriously. He’s a douche. You’re right; he’s wrong. And although I don’t watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Report very often, I think both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are awesome.

]]> By: meghan http://www.looksandbooks.com/2012/07/18/make-me-laugh/#comment-1986 meghan Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:12:14 +0000 http://www.looksandbooks.com/?p=2529#comment-1986 p.s. I just read the whole Almond article. I agree that the Rally to Restore Fear/Sanity was a bit disappointing from my own perspective in that it was a missed opportunity to really take a stand and call out the political system in front of a live audience... however, I stand by my assertion that Colbert and Stewart both do this in their own way- and the fact that the article doesn't touch on the Super PAC in particular neglects a huge part of how Colbert's subversion works. Interesting omission by the author. p.s. I just read the whole Almond article. I agree that the Rally to Restore Fear/Sanity was a bit disappointing from my own perspective in that it was a missed opportunity to really take a stand and call out the political system in front of a live audience… however, I stand by my assertion that Colbert and Stewart both do this in their own way- and the fact that the article doesn’t touch on the Super PAC in particular neglects a huge part of how Colbert’s subversion works. Interesting omission by the author.

]]> By: meghan http://www.looksandbooks.com/2012/07/18/make-me-laugh/#comment-1985 meghan Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:55:52 +0000 http://www.looksandbooks.com/?p=2529#comment-1985 Oh, my. I love this post. Really, I don't get how Almond can say Stewart and Colbert aren't encouraging protest-- especially Colbert, when he actually does things like run for the presidential primary in SC and start his own Super PAC (the latter of which Stewart was also in on). Sure, it is a different form of subversion than encouraging everyone to go down to Zuccotti Park, but I think it's subversive nonetheless. Now, the question is whether they do what they do purely to critique the socio-political system or also for entertainment purposes. And Jon Stewart has been painfully clear on this, that their role is entertainment. (Though, in actuality, I think he is too insistent on this point precisely because the supposed sources of "news" operate more as info-tainment than actual reliable news sources.) Regardless, it is clear they are successful to the degree they are because they are also funny. And being funny, witty, and insightful about current events on a <i>nightly</i> basis is something that requires talent and a lot of hard work. Maybe the argument is that they should chuck their TV shows because they are too beholden to Comedy Central... but you know what? I would argue that the most subversive show on television is South Park, and Comedy Central seems to give them almost completely free rein on what to cover. Maybe the argument is that television is too passive of a platform in which to engage people... but how is that different than performing from a stage, as Bill Hicks did? I guess there could be a larger point about how Colbert and Stewart are reliant upon capitalism and consumerism to some degree for their successes, but, again, I don't see how that differs from any other comedian out there. In short, I don't think Almond's argument holds too much water. And if it weren't for Colbert and Stewart, a generation would be even more uninformed and apathetic than they are now-- and certainly less entertained. Maybe that's not much, but it's something. Anyway, great post, Jill! Oh, my. I love this post. Really, I don’t get how Almond can say Stewart and Colbert aren’t encouraging protest– especially Colbert, when he actually does things like run for the presidential primary in SC and start his own Super PAC (the latter of which Stewart was also in on). Sure, it is a different form of subversion than encouraging everyone to go down to Zuccotti Park, but I think it’s subversive nonetheless. Now, the question is whether they do what they do purely to critique the socio-political system or also for entertainment purposes. And Jon Stewart has been painfully clear on this, that their role is entertainment. (Though, in actuality, I think he is too insistent on this point precisely because the supposed sources of “news” operate more as info-tainment than actual reliable news sources.) Regardless, it is clear they are successful to the degree they are because they are also funny. And being funny, witty, and insightful about current events on a nightly basis is something that requires talent and a lot of hard work. Maybe the argument is that they should chuck their TV shows because they are too beholden to Comedy Central… but you know what? I would argue that the most subversive show on television is South Park, and Comedy Central seems to give them almost completely free rein on what to cover. Maybe the argument is that television is too passive of a platform in which to engage people… but how is that different than performing from a stage, as Bill Hicks did? I guess there could be a larger point about how Colbert and Stewart are reliant upon capitalism and consumerism to some degree for their successes, but, again, I don’t see how that differs from any other comedian out there. In short, I don’t think Almond’s argument holds too much water. And if it weren’t for Colbert and Stewart, a generation would be even more uninformed and apathetic than they are now– and certainly less entertained. Maybe that’s not much, but it’s something. Anyway, great post, Jill!

]]>