Sunday, April 30, 2006
One Other Thought...
Stephen Colbert's speech last night was at least as critical of the Washington press corps as it was of George W. Bush. Take this section...
But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years, you people were so good over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew. But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know...fiction.
This was a dinner for White House correspondents, let's remember. And if you were trying to tell them that you think they're a bunch of incompetents who have damaged the world by not doing their jobs, I'm not sure what you could have written that would convey that charge better than the above.
The more I think about it, the more I think Colbert made a conscious decision not to care if the audience laughed. I mean, if all you care about is making White House reporters guffaw, you do jokes about the cramped offices, the hate mail, the lack of respect they get from others, etc. Whatever you think of the guy, he didn't come out there and pander to the audience for laughs. He insulted the audience. Perhaps he totally misjudged the room but I think it's more likely he just plain said what he thought of them.
• Posted at 3:21 PM · LINK
To Tell the Truthiness
Here's a safer link to a video of the speech last night...
I've received about forty messages from readers of this site about how they felt, ranging the gamut from "he was hilarious" to "not one giggle." I think both extremes overstate and I'm inclined to agree with this e-mail that came from a Rob Rose...
I think my feelings can be summed up quickly:
1. He had some pretty brilliant lines — some of which were perhaps a bit too pointed for that room.
2. Probably not quite how I would have approached it myself — while I personally loathe the Bush administration, if I were working the stage while the President was sitting there, I would probably not want to kick him while he's down quite as much as Colbert did.
3. On the other hand, it was I think pretty true to Colbert's usual style — which means the blame really lies with whoever decided to hire him. They got what they ought to have expected, I think.
There are times when I see some politician I don't like getting slammed and I feel sorry for them. In spite of what anyone says, these are human beings and even the ones I think are destructive are in some warped way trying to make life better. But then I think about that destruction and about the fact that often, they don't seem to recognize it. I often recall a remark I heard on some political discussion show years ago about one elected official. Some reporter said, "He does not connect what he does with its impact on people's lives. If you tell him someone died because they couldn't afford medical care, he says 'That's terrible' and genuinely feels sorry for them...but refuses to accept that it might have something to do with that bill he signed that cost a million people their health insurance." Even the politicos I support at times do things that devastate lives and our sympathies ought to go to the folks who get killed in wars, lose their homes, etc., not to the ones who, even inadvertently or indirectly, caused or failed to stop that damage.
I also remember that most politicians seem to be fine with calling their opponents mentally ill or criminal or pathological liars, and that they voluntarily get into a line of work where others are going to do that to them. Nixon used to use the old ruse of saying, "What people say about me doesn't bother me but it upsets my family" — to which a reasonable reply was, "Well, maybe you should have thought of that before you decided to seek public office." It sort of comes with the job description.
The man who booked Colbert for the event — apparently the gent you see on the video introducing him — did what they always do: He went for the highest-profile topical comedian he could get. That was probably Stephen Colbert. I'm not sure why they even have a comedian at these things since the audience never seems all that interested in sitting there, listening to an outsider mock them and what they do. But you're right: They got what they should have expected. And everyone Colbert insulted, Bush especially, should have thick-enough skin to endure it.
• Posted at 12:52 PM · LINK
Early Sunday Morning
In the previous message, I posted the following two links to the best copy of Stephen Colbert's routine I could find online. This upset a couple of readers of newsfromme because — as I hadn't noticed, sorry — the links are to a site that also hosts a fair amount of porn. At the moment, I can't find another complete link to a decent copy so for those of you who want to risk connecting with a site that also contains naked people, here they are: Part One and Part Two. If and when I find a "safer" link, I'll post it.
My e-mailbox is stuffed with messages from people telling me either that Colbert was inarguably hilarious or definitely unfunny. Most of these people seem to think he is always whichever way they found him to be at the Correspondents' Dinner.
• Posted at 6:11 AM · LINK
The Truthiness Hurts
I haven't quite decided yet what I think of Stephen Colbert's speech at the Correspondents' Dinner though I'm getting there. I will say that he showed great courage to do some of that material in front of that crowd. I'd be curious to hear reports from people who were actually in the room since the audience was not well-miked and I'm not sure why certain folks were selected for the audience reaction shots. One did get the idea that Mr. and Mrs. George W. Bush weren't delighted with the floor show...as is explained in what I suspect is the first of many articles about the performance.
I've never been to one of these press dinners but I'm guessing it's a very hard room for a comedian. The people aren't there to be entertained. They want to mingle and hobnob with the famous. They'll sit still for a speech by the president, whoever he is at the moment, because it's his presence that elevates the importance of the event they're proud to be attending. But apart from that, I'll bet most of the crowd is eager for it to be over with so they can go back to fraternizing. The gent who was hosting seemed to be having a fair amount of trouble getting the audience to pipe down and listen to the program.
I'd also be curious to know what Colbert's goal was...and it may not have just been to entertain the folks out front in the formal wear. If it was, he probably went about it the wrong way. When you hammer the president that much right in front of him, you make an awful lot of people uncomfy...and not just the ones who side with the guy. I thought some of Colbert's lines were brilliant but if I'd been in the room, I might have spent more time looking at the reactions of others (Bush, especially) to some of them than laughing. On the other hand, Colbert's main objective may have been to cultivate a certain image as a performer...or simply to express his views. He could well have succeeded in one or both of those.
I'm going to watch it again tomorrow and see how I feel about it then. It may be it's like one of those events where the boss is being ridiculed but everyone feels okay about laughing as soon as the boss starts laughing. Only in this case, the boss never started laughing.
• Posted at 2:14 AM · LINK
Today's Video Link
Yesterday, I told you I liked Penn and Teller. Today, I tell you I like David Copperfield...at to some extent for the same reasons. Both acts took magic to new places. While I have a great respect for someone who can do the linking rings as well as Jonathan Pendragon or the cups-and-balls as well as Johnny "Ace" Palmer, I also like guys who come out on stage and do something you've never seen before. Or at least, it doesn't look like anything you've ever seen before. (A lot of good "new" magic is putting a new facade on an old structure.)
I know people mock Copperfield's poses and the way he portrays himself...and I find that kind of thing funny and/or creepy when it's done by lesser magicians who haven't his skill or crediblity. But there's also a "perfectionist" aspect to his work that I admire and a constant desire to do something different, something that the audience (the members of it not on his payroll) will long remember. Someone posted to Google Video a bit from one of his specials that I heard people discussing in the Ralph's Market, days after it first aired on CBS. It's another one of those tricks that you can figure out if you have the slightest common sense but he does it so well that it works anyway. Here it is...
• Posted at 12:48 AM · LINK
April 29, 2006
