sindre-almost

Disclaimer: this post is to be considered as a pubished draft, I have not proofed it, and it might lack some coherence. It will be edited over the weekend. 

Stand-up comedy has always been around, but now it is almost all that there is. Gone are the days of Monty Python, Jeeves and Wooster, Only Fools and Horses.

Monty Python are for the most part known for The Flying Circus, Live a the Hollywood Bowl and The Parrot skit, it was unconventional and utterly silly, this made it watchable time and time again, they didn’t just rely one one-liners and social stereotypes(apart from salespersons being sly), nor did they aim to primarily make fun of any particular politicians (although governments and their silly grants are illustrated in the silly walk skit, is another story) it was a multitude of silliness though out.

The stand-up comedy of today falls into a few categories, social commentary, political musings, and stereotype humour, there are limits to how many times you can watch it and still find it funny. And at some point you will find it less funny (I do anyway) not necessarily because you have seen the show or act before, but simply because it you have reached a saturation level when it comes to that kind of comedy.

There are of course some legend’s in the stand up comedy business though, such as Bill Hicks, Robin Williams, Eddie Izzard and Dennis Leary Bill Hicks is mainly a legend because of his pro-drugs and anti Bush Sr. but he did many shows in which the material was much the same. The others are manly so because they did it before it reached todays popularity level, and that no subject was to absurd or controversial. 

The stand-up comedy of today manly deals with the inadequacies of unpopular politicians or  stereotypes (rednecks, hillbillies, arabs, mexicans) Some of these acts are more successful due to their format such as Jeff Dunham and his ventriloquism. But others  such as Russell Peters who’s entire show (almost) deals with indian stereotypes and behavior. This is not only a cheap type of comedy, self-deprecating. And I say this because when you only comment on, in Russell Peters case, your own social groups quirks you lack sincerity. And although comedy is supposed to be fun, it also needs a level of sincerity to have an effect. If not, it needs to be utterly silly on a level that so far only Monty Python has managed to reach.

The sincerity can best be illustrated with shows like Jon Steward’s A daily show. Where news meets comedy, his comments are meant to be funny, and in doing so he either illustrates how silly a political argument is, or it underlines the gravity of a story. There is something to be said about newsbroadcasters in the United States when some of the better news programs are produced and broadcast on the comedy channel.

There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER. – Edward .R Murrow  – October 15, 1958

So if comedy is to be left to the ever so popular stand-up comedians of today, comedy will no longer serve any other purpose that to for a fraction of a second, at the punch line, to get a short laughter. Although some would argue that this is the purpose of comedy, I would argue otherwise. Comedy is a tool which can be used to inform, teach and educate either trough increasing our understanding of a subject. Jeeves and Wooster does not appear to fall into this particular type of comedy, but it will at some point increase your vocabulary and learn how to get out of engagements, persistent aunts and relatives. 

Even though the series I’ve mentioned does not comment or enlighten us about the world and it’s events. They are classics with substance  and where produced in a time when televised news-reporting adhered to higher standards than today. And as such there was not much need for comedy to do more than entertain us. In todays fast paced around the clock new reporting where news outlets compete in who can scare you the most, who can hold the suspense and get to to stay tuned during the commercial break.

Comedy should, and has taken on a new task, to entertain us with news. Not all news needs to be of a grave nature, but even then comedy should comment, report and enlighten us on the issues that seems lost, or perhaps even ignored by other more serious news casters, comedians should and must take their role. Simply because comedians can get away with commenting on more controversial issues, hold unpopular opinions (either unpopular to a majority of society or governments) simply because it’s comedy and since it’s in it’s nature not to be taken seriously. Satire has often been the tool of individuals to combat dictators,  ne’er-do-well kings, an oppressive majority and similar. Because if those people/persons or majority took them seriously and punished them in any way they would only give them more credibility. This is the power of comedy and it is an untapped source by and large.

Then you have Monty Python which cannot be defined other than their name itself but even if you don’t think their style of comedy is funny and/or hilarious I believe that you will agree to that they at the time and still are one of a kind. No one has done what they did. That is to utterly surprise us with silliness, because nothing like what they did had ever been done. And in a world as surreal as ours that is truly a feat. Sure skits have been around, but the complexity and combinations with cheap animations, silly effects such as banging coconut shells to simulate the sounds of a horse. They where, and still are unique, sadly so because I would like nothing more than someone attempting what they did, to surprise us to the same extent, with utter silliness.