26 Responses

1. pgreyy says:

   June 22, 2010 at 5:46 pm

   Friend of Shecky, Myq Kaplan is on to the semi-finals this year…when the PREVIOUS LCS, he was stopped short in his initial audition and chastised by Steve Schirippa for being yet another comic to do a joke that involves harming babies.

   This show, like every reality tv show, manufactures storylines…and that, to them, is more important than being fair to comics or respecting the integrity of the competition (such as it is…)

   It’s what they do. And we all know it–some of us (yay for the Male Half) know it a little better now, from the inside… 😉

   Reply
   • Shaun Eli says:

     June 23, 2010 at 9:39 am

     Eddie Brill (who books comics for Letterman) says that Letterman’s rule is that he doesn’t like comics who make fun of the less-fortunate if they’re not there to defend themselves. While you may balk at any limitation on premises, in general I would agree with him. It’s one thing to make fun of public figures who are responsible for their predicaments (the president, the latest guy to cheat on his wife, head of an oil company) or people we don’t know (your boss, your parents, the anonymous guy in a store this morning) but a joke whose basis is someone’s accidental misfortune starts out with one foot in a hole.

     Not to say that all jokes that mention the homeless are necessarily making fun OF the homeless, but here in NYC there are a lot of comics whose material is just that. And it gets tiring to hear the same ideas over and over when my thought is “There but for the grace of God go I.” We get it, they’re living in the streets, they don’t have opportunities to bathe regularly so they smell, they all make the same droning pitch on the subway, why don’t their shoes match, they have dogs and radios and cell phones…

     And there seem to be plenty of anti-Semitic premises in stand-up comedy, usually of the ‘Jews are cheap’ variety. Often told by Jews. It’s pretty much the same stuff over and over. My thought is that a joke that’s simply re-stating a stereotype, rather than making fun OF the stereotype, is lazy writing. I’m sure you’re sick of the “I’m half (this ethnicity) and half (that ethnicity) so I (insert a combination of two stereotypes).” You’re half French and half German so every morning you wake up and surrender to yourself? We get it, it’s brilliant… (sorry, that’s the first thing that occurred to me when typing this, those are the first two ethnicities I came up with and that’s the obvious joke that I came up with).

     Reply
     • Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

       June 23, 2010 at 10:26 am

       We couldn’t disagree more. Letterman’s rule completely ignores the punchline. Of course, he can have anyone on the show he likes– it’s his show. But we say, if the punchline is good, the joke is justified. We say: Focus on the punchline. We say, Don’t dismiss a joke– or an entire category of jokes– by making an arbitrary rule against a premise.

       And then there’s the idea that all homeless people are 100 per cent victims. This is nonsense. It assumes an awful lot. And, in making that assumption, seeks to silence or dismiss, pre-emptively, an entire category of jokes.

       “There but for the grace of God go I?” The issue of homelessness is so much more complex than that. The “we’re all one paycheck away from homelessness” meme is so 1989. The residents of NYC have a bit more of a nuanced view of the homeless than they did in the days of Mitch Snyder. We ask you, Shaun: Exactly how/why have jokes about the homeless become “tiring,” become commonplace? We submit that it’s because the jokes have become acceptable… in NYC… and that the reason those jokes have become acceptable is because hardly anyone buys that the vast majority of homeless in NYC are totally without responsiblity, in part or in whole, for their situation. And therein lies the change in the dynamic of the relationship. There is creeping resentment. And it is upon that creeping resentment that such jokes are based.

       If this dynamic hadn’t changed, the jokes you speak of would be rare. And those who told them would be considered daring. As it is, they’re just jokes.

       As for “anti-Semitic” jokes, we’re puzzled as to why Jews– or any ethnic group– should be sheltered from ribbing. (We’ve made the point countless times in the magazine with regard to Mexicans. We’ve made a pretty good argument that submitting to comic abuse is a time-honored way of assimiliating or staying assimilated.) And a distinction must be made between a joke that mentions Jews (or contains the words “Jewish” or “Jew”) and a joke that is anti-Semitic. The charge is one of the most damning that can be made (right up there with “racist.”) and should not be tossed around lightly.

       You say, “It’s pretty much the same stuff over and over.” It is… and it isn’t. There’s the occasional gem. We hear them on occasion. What you hear as “the same stuff over and over,” we hear as the collective voice of thousands of comedians attempting to craft the perfect joke. Occasionally, we get it right. If you cut off the process, if you short-circuit it by arbitrarily proscribing certain topics, if you rope off this ethnic group or this religion as a protected species, you deprive the audience of what might be the best joke so far– and you unnecessarily engender resentment toward those who are protected. So… in an attempt to protect this group or that, you inadvertently harm them. There’s no real good reason to do it. There’s several good reasons not to. Comedy, we are constantly told, is (or should be) on the cutting edge, should be pushing the envelope, perhaps occasionally offensive or shocking to the senses, etc. What you advocate is the exact opposite of pushing the envelope.

       David Letterman can have all the rules he wants, though. As we said, it’s his show. Does Andy deserve the same courtesy, the same power on LCS? We suppose the argument could be made that he does. But we submit that it’s… incongruous. That Andy has represented the exact opposite of such safety when it comes to comedy. Does anyone take more risks than Andy Kindler? This makes the rules that much more puzzling.

       As for the half and half jokes, we get it– you think they’re hacky. So… why bring it up? Why do a montage? Why make comics– any comics, new, experienced or otherwise– look bad by pointing out their shortcomings? On a network television show that is ostensibly dedicated to showcasing the best? We are attempting to point out what a waste of time (and what a mean-spirited and ultimately pointless exercise) it is. And, like we said before, the half and half jokes have been unofficially banned by the premise police… so we may never hear the ultimate half and half joke… it could even be a “meta-half and half joke,” with a knowing nod to the alt gods. One that stops you in your tracks and makes you say, “Whoa… why didn’t I think of that?” Of course, the answer to that would be, because you were waved off by the Premise Ppolice. And all because some folks took a disliking to the idea.

       Reply
       • Shaun Eli says:

         June 23, 2010 at 11:00 am

         Well I suppose I half-agree with you. Sure, if a joke’s funny it’s funny. But it’s a lot less likely to BE funny if it starts with one foot in a hole. I’m not dismissing an entire category so much as saying that such a category is going to be more difficult to make work. You may get a laugh at your pope joke doing a show in a Catholic church, or a rape joke in front of the National Organization for Women, but probably not.

         I’m not one paycheck away from homelessness but we’re all one mental illness away from mental illness.

         Jokes about the homeless or anti-Semitic jokes haven’t become commonplace because they’re acceptable, they’ve become commonplace (just like subway jokes are, here in NYC) because we write about what we see and do and think. And because comics write at least partially about what annoys us, whether it’s having to deal with the homeless or the misguided thinking that I drive a nicer car than you that I can afford because of an accumulated lifetime of being a lousy tipper (for the record my car’s 15 years old and I’m an excessively generous tipper, like many who’ve worked for tips and then done well). That’s why black comics have jokes about being stopped by the police and people crossing the street at night to avoid them. And why you probably have jokes about marriage.

         I’m not saying that Jews or cops or wives or any other group should be sheltered from ribbing, I’m saying that the same stupid jokes over and over again aren’t clever. (and I did say that not all jokes that mention the homeless are making fun of them; the same goes for Jewish jokes- not all jokes that mention Jews are anti-Semitic; I told Jewish jokes on stage in NYC last night).

         Yes, there’s the occasional gem. I have heard half-half jokes that made me laugh. Amidst hundreds that have not. Because most of these were just stereotypes slammed together, not something that took any talent.

         I’m not saying don’t do it, I’m saying that the bar’s set higher because you’ve got a lot of competition with the same ideas. Yes, airline food tastes horrible and the packages of peanuts are hard to open. We get it. A few years ago when every open-miker had an “If your erection lasts more than four hours call your doctor” joke Leno had his take on it, which was different and funny. But I also heard fifty other people’s jokes that were basically the same.

         I don’t think comedy’s reason for existence is to push the envelope and be shocking to the senses. I think its job is to be funny. You can be clean, unshocking, traditional and hilarious. You can also be shocking and offensive and cause & release tension without being at all clever.

         What Andy Kindler does on LCS is subject to the whims and wishes of those doing the editing.

         And your reference to ‘the premise police’– I don’t think anybody has that power, as evidenced by the fact that there are the same premises repeated ad nauseum. Hey, I made fun of the Ten Commandments last night. I think that goes back almost six thousand years. But my particular jokes? I’ve never heard them before.

         Lastly I’m not defending the editing of LCS. If it were my show I wouldn’t have had a montage of Jewish jokes nor would I have shown any of the goofy auditioners at all, just real comics. But it’s not my show.

         Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m half Philadelphian so I have to go row now.

       • Myq Kaplan says:

         June 23, 2010 at 11:10 am

         Firstly, I certainly agree that there is a difference between jokes about race and racist jokes, and that there is a logical parallel regarding the homeless.

         Here is what I would add, though, in response to the claim that “all homeless people are [not] 100 per cent victims.” Of course that’s so, but I don’t think it’s crazy to theorize that MANY homeless people are some LARGE percent victims…
         Do you know how many homeless people are mentally ill?
         This article (http://anxietypanichealth.com/2008/10/15/a-national-shame-the-mentally-ill-homeless/)that I found by googling for one second (I’m happy to do more research but for now, I think this helps represent a generally accepted point), let me start this sentence again…
         This article offers forth the statistic that almost half of the homeless population is seriously mentally ill, and that’s certainly through no fault of their own.

         Of course, the quality of a joke should be judged on an individual basis, not by a category… I think the mistake is reading “I don’t like jokes belittling the homeless” as a PRESCRIPTION of what jokes people should or should not write or tell, as opposed to a DESCRIPTION of that which the statement-maker has perceived and felt in the past. It’s wrong to say “don’t tell a joke on this topic,” but it’s not wrong to say “I’ve heard a lot of jokes on this topic, and many of them have come across the same way, which hasn’t sat well with me (because it seems like you’re just making fun of crazy people, say).”

         e.g. This homeless guy is SO crazy. (How crazy is he?) He’s SO crazy that he needs medication that he can’t afford and the system is broken.

         Again, obviously there can be great jokes written about homeless people, but I think it’s prudent (when writing such a joke) to be aware of whether you’re just pointing at a crazy person and saying “look how crazy that crazy is.”

         Unless the homeless person is Jewish. Then go crazy!

       • Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

         June 23, 2010 at 11:43 am

         We are well aware of the percentage of homeless people who are mentally ill. Indeed, the great tragedy of homelessness is those who are there because of the unintended consequences of changes long ago in the laws regarding the treatment of the mentally ill.

         But we do not agree on the second part– the distinction between the prescription and the description. We maintain that there is no difference in effect.

         Kindler said, and we paraphrase, that he was uncomfortable with homeless jokes. He didn’t go into that much detail. Not much was mentioned about context.

         So his words have a dampening effect.

         As for your crazy example, I would say that, if folks want to make jokes about mental illness, they shouldn’t feel constrained from doing so.

         We’ve been told (at least up until about 15 years or so ago) that no topic is off limits if a comedian wants to truly push the limits of his craft.

         Lately, however, we are witnessing the rather odd spectacle of comedians telling others– either directly or through the press– what they can/cannot or should/should not joke about. A comic telling his fellow comics to exercise “prudence.” This may be unprecedented. Has there ever been anything like this in the past? Has there ever been a time when comedians were so terribly concerned about what other comedians do? Have we ever seen so many comedians so concerned about the overall reputation of comedians? It’s bad enough when the press gets on our case, we really don’t need our fellow comics tsk-tsking.

         We care about the reputation of standup comics and how they’re perceived by the public, but we rarely, if ever, fret that it might be their choice of material that might be at issue. And we’re not about to start.

       • Myq Kaplan says:

         June 23, 2010 at 12:27 pm

         The word “prudent” means “exercising good judgment” or “sensible.” I think it’s weird of you to suggest it’s negative to for me to suggest that people aspire to those attributes. Additionally, I wasn’t telling anyone they have to do anything, just stating my opinion; I think it’s a good idea to think about what I say, so I do it. People can disagree and do what they want, of course.

         I’m not trying to police anyone. In addition to being a comedian, I’m also a comedy fan, and in that respect, I have likes and dislikes. Am I not free to share them? Why is it negative to discuss what we do or don’t like about comedy? And in this case, what I don’t like are thoughtless, lazy, or easy jokes basically just calling crazy people crazy.

         And I’m not saying (nor was I before) that all jokes about the homeless fall into that category, but I’m saying that some do, and those are the ones that I don’t enjoy as a consumer of comedy. And my interpretation of Andy’s statement is that he feels similarly. (Add to that the fact that the show DID air advancing comedians with jokes about the homeless, or Jewish-ness, and I think you can reasonably conclude that they are not being dogmatic and dismissing comedians or jokes categorically, but that they are judging people and their work individually, such that even when there might be a wariness regarding certain topics that have either been overdone or done poorly in the past, when that is not the case, good comedy is rewarded.)

         Of course, write jokes about homelessness, mental illness, Jewishness, whatever you want.

         You said, “Lately, however, we are witnessing the rather odd spectacle of comedians telling others– either directly or through the press– what they can/cannot or should/should not joke about.”
         I think what you are really witnessing is “the internet.” EVERYONE is telling anyone with a computer their opinions, some informed, some not, some reasonable, some not. Of course, these are all opinions.

         I know that a lot of non-governmental “censorship” comes from the left, and political correctness gone awry, and people in power responding to the very vocal minority that complains about the wrong things. But that’s not what’s happening here.

         Andy was giving his opinions, then editing happened. He’s one of the judges, so why shouldn’t his views be shared? Could there be an impartial judge with no opinions, no likes or dislikes? And like I said, good comics got through with jokes that mentioned Jews, people got through with jokes about the homeless.

         You say, “Have we ever seen so many comedians so concerned about the overall reputation of comedians? It’s bad enough when the press gets on our case, we really don’t need our fellow comics tsk-tsking.”

         Now who’s trying to tell people what to do? Aren’t you all about people saying whatever they want to say?

         Not to mention, Andy Kindler has built a CAREER and a well-respected body of work and a noble following, out of tsk-tsking fellow comics, out of being outspoken about his opinions on comedy. And now he’s a judge on a show that involves judging comedy. This doesn’t seem incongruous.

         My opinion!

       • Shaun Eli says:

         June 23, 2010 at 12:27 pm

         I’m not saying that any topic is off-limits, but if, for example, your joke has as its topic sticking Jews into ovens it’s extremely unlikely most Jews will enjoy the joke. If the audience is thoroughly revolted before you get to the punchline it’s hard to get them to appreciate the punchline.

         Similarly it’s suggested to white comics not to use the N word on stage. And in general that’s good advice, because most black people don’t want to hear white comics use the word. That said, I’ve used it a couple of times (I’m white) in a story but not in a way that offends. Because it’s a story about how I did a show in a club full of black people (I was the only white person in the room), the emcee set me up to fail, I killed, and when he took the stage after me he said “That was great. That’s one funny -” (I don’t even want to type the N-word here but in telling that story on stage I have to use the word itself).

         Lastly, I’m not talking about the topic of the joke but about how the topic’s applied. Jokes about homelessness? Fine. But jokes where the basic premise is I Hate You Because You’re Homeless And Homeless People Smell?
         Making fun not of the problem but essentially bullying the sufferer? We can do better.

     • Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

       June 23, 2010 at 1:23 pm

       Myq, Shaun:

       The discussion has gotten away from the original moaning– that the Jew Montage was unnecessary and that it made any subsequent comic who did a “Jewish Joke” look bad. And that Kindler’s opinions, expressed in print and on the show regarding jokes about homelessness serve no purpose and may, in fact, do harm to comics who craft perfectly fine jokes on that topic.

       The Female Half did a homeless jokes (which related a true story). Natasha says, “I didn’t like the homeless joke.” The Female Half said, “Why? Was it too mean?” to which Natash replied, “No, it wasn’t mean enough.”

       So… there you have two comics, two judges, sitting side by side. Why, we ask, was Kindler’s opinion aired on the show, and not Legerro’s? What purpose was served?

       Shaun says, “Jokes about homelessness? Fine. But jokes where the basic premise is I Hate You Because You’re Homeless And Homeless People Smell? Making fun not of the problem but essentially bullying the sufferer? We can do better.”

       To which we reply, “Duh!”

       Who doesn’t know that a bad joke is a bad joke? It is a rare professional comic who doesn’t. Most comics also know exactly where the line is when it comes to offense. And the vast majority have a rationale and a method and a justification (a subtext, if you will) underpinning each joke.

       But that’s not what we’re talking about.

       Shaun says, “Similarly it’s suggested to white comics not to use the N word on stage.”

       We’re not talking about using the word certain inflammatory words onstage, either. But, while we’re on that subject, we take a dim view of these people who suggest that anyone, regardless of the color of their skin, refrain from doing so.

       Do we advocate using the word in the service of a bad, poorly written joke? You would have to be a special kind of moron to think that.

       Shaun says: “I’m not saying that any topic is off-limits, but if, for example, your joke has as its topic sticking Jews into ovens it’s extremely unlikely most Jews will enjoy the joke. If the audience is thoroughly revolted before you get to the punchline it’s hard to get them to appreciate the punchline.”

       To which we reply, again, “Duh!”

       However, we imagine that there is a very clever joke “out there,” which has as its topic sticking Jews into ovens, which might also be a profoundly funny, clever and perhaps even thought-provoking joke. And, were it to be told, we don’t really care if “most Jews will enjoy the joke.” We suspect that if the joke were well-written enough, we would tell any Jew… or any Gentile… or any Muslim who didn’t get the joke to go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut, because… THEY OBVIOUSLY DIDN’T GET THE FUCKING JOKE.

       Remember that concept? I wrote a great joke. I told it. The crowd didn’t get it. It happens. It’s happened before, it’ll happen again. But, again, that’s not what we’re arguing about.

       Here’s a paragraph from Bob McCoog, a man who “is not a professional comedian of any sort,” who, in an article entitled “How to Be Funny: Making it Past the Audition in Last Comic Standing” for associatedcontent.com, writes:

       “Ethnic/racist humor may work in bars, but not for the judges– Last night’s episode was a prime example of this rule. Anti-Semitic humor, although it may be funny in your local bar, do not go over well with the judges. This is especially true if one of the judges is Jewish. Poking fun at stereotypes, however, is a better way to go. For instance, talking about why a white person crosses the street when they see a black person only to find out it’s their boyfriend works better than talking about a jewish face.”

       Happy now? Bob McCoog, a comedy fan, is now an expert on comedy. “Poking fun at stereotypes” is “a better way to go.”

       Our argument is that the exploration of what is offensive to Andy Kindler is unnecessary. And that all of the time devoted to which jokes offend him and the montage of the unfunny Italian comics or the speech about how homeless jokes make him uncomfortable could have been devoted to comics… telling jokes. Jokes that were funny. How’s that for a novel concept?

       As for Myq’s contention that “good comedy is rewarded” when comics are shown doing “approved” (our word) homeless or Jewish jokes, we differ. You give the viewer far too much credit. He sees the Jewish Montage, and thereafter, he is conditioned to believe that any joke that resembles those which were included in that collection are offensive. The comic is made to look like an unfeeling buffoon. Mission accomplished.

       We never said that Andy’s views shouldn’t be shared. But we must wonder why those particular (negative) views were shared. Can anyone think of a good reason for the montages (Jewish, Italian or otherwise)? Further, is there any reason to do those montages other than to embarras comedians (both those in the montages or those comics following who dare to transgress the new law)?

       It bugs us when comics tell other comics what to do or what not to do.

       We are grateful that the producers of the show did not make us look like buffoons. We dodged a bullet, because, let’s face it– with so much footage, and access to editing bays, they can make anyone look foolish. But we can’t just sit on our hands while the show makes other comics look less than professional.

       We can hear you now: “But some of those comics truly were unprofessional!”

       To which we reply: “Don’t show them.”

       It’s as simple as that.

       Are there comedians who craft awful jokes with no nuance and no redeeming value? Certainly. Would you show them on a show that seeks to find the funniest comics in America? We wouldn’t.

       You want contrast? Drama? Diversity? There’s an eye-popping amount of contrast, texture, diversity and flavors among comics, their material and their approaches.

       Displaying that for a wide audience of standup comedy fans would be a delight for them and a boost for comedians in general.

       Reply
       • Myq Kaplan says:

         June 23, 2010 at 1:42 pm

         I agree that such montages are not necessarily productive (especially because I know Louis Katz, for example, to be a very funny Jewish non-anti-Semite, and taken out of context, an unfortunate editing victim).

         I was included in such a montage in a previous season, where I was included in a “don’t tell jokes about harming babies” montage.

         Thing is, I take issue with this statement of yours: “You give the viewer far too much credit.”

         I say that because in the year of the baby montage, I got lots of positive feedback from people who saw it and thought that I was funny (along with the other montage victims, one of whom is Carmen Lynch, who has looked great on the show this season thus far), and that it had looked silly to demonize us/our jokes in that way.

         Additionally, people I know (non-comedians) who have watched the show noted the odd nature of advancing Mike DeStefano (with a back story involving some very arguably stereotypical Italians) and then showing the “don’t do this” Italian montage.

         I’ve heard similar reactions to the Jewish montage.

         What you’re saying, that the viewers will just accept one thing they see as gospel and not register anything contradictory because of that, I think that gives them too LITTLE credit.

         Seems similar to the Bill Hicks/Letterman joke/story that I’m sure you know, which I’ll butcher/paraphrase here, where Bill was told that he was funny, but that the audience for the show might not think so, to which he replied (I believe) that he was PART of the audience of the show, as was the studio audience who enjoyed his performance that was banned.

         Why presume that the audience is full of the lowest common denominator? There’s all kinds of denominators. Certainly some people will react the way you’re saying, but many don’t.

         And of course, if the time could have been spent showcasing and giving positive exposure to a greater number of solid comedians, certainly I would have been for that. I agree the montages are unnecessary; I just disagree that they are as harmful and influential as you might think. (Judging from my experience being part of one, which led to very little negativity and a fair amount of positivity, compared to the zero sum I probably would have received had that montage not been there at all… Is there truly no bad publicity? I’m not sure, but certainly a lot of potentially bad publicity can turn out to be good, or at least close to neutral.)

       • Myq Kaplan says:

         June 23, 2010 at 1:52 pm

         PS Didn’t mean to lose sight of your initial concern again–just wanted to clarify, I do agree that the montage time certainly could have been productively spent differently, though I also understand the desire on the production end to break up the structure. And given that, I think it makes perfect sense to showcase the tastes of the judges. Is the execution ideal? Perhaps not. I’d have liked to see more from Louis Katz, with his name featured, but if the alternative is none of him at all, I was happy to see him. (The same way I was happy to be seen for three seconds on air in that prior season.)

       • Shaun Eli says:

         June 23, 2010 at 2:40 pm

         Well I say “Duh” to most of what you said. We’re agreeing on most things and yet somehow we’re arguing.

         But as far as saying Screw Off to someone who doesn’t get an offensive joke, sometimes people get a joke, understand it’s a joke, understand exactly where the humor comes from… they just don’t think it’s funny.

         And I think we all agree (and by ‘we’ I mean comics) that the show should just be professional comics doing their best material, with maybe some interaction with the judges. And maybe montages, if they’re montages of good comedy. But the producers of the show want to show bad comedy too, so they do.

       • pgreyy says:

         June 23, 2010 at 2:40 pm

         …where you joked about harming poor defenseless babies.

         I mean, obviously, not all babies are defenseless (and some, I’m sure, are helping the terrorists win)…but it would have been prudent of you, Myq–if that is your real name–to have known that a guy famous for playing a mobster on “The Sopranos” would not appreciate your flippant disregard of the vast majority of babies who you could actually (with your thin, barely useful, vegan arms) harm, in some way.

         AND SCENE.

       • pgreyy says:

         June 23, 2010 at 2:42 pm

         (My reply, obviously, only really makes sense if read after Myq’s previous reply. Damn you, Shaun Eli for posting at the exact same time I did and making my attempt at lightening the mood an epic fail.)

       • Myq Kaplan says:

         June 23, 2010 at 2:55 pm

         PGreyy–nice blog comment montage of attempting mood-lightening. I’ll continue it…
         Of course I would never really go after a poor defenseless baby.
         A rich one, yes.

       • Shaun Eli says:

         June 23, 2010 at 3:10 pm

         For the record, Mr. Greyy, I’m three hours ahead of you.

       • Bill Holmes says:

         June 23, 2010 at 9:35 pm

         I was going to suggest that you don’t give the viewers *enough* credit but Myq beat me to it. The “Jew montage” for me was just a bad use of time rather than an offensive bit or a manipulative one. I looked it as the producer and/or director thinking it would be hilarious, except it wasn’t.

         Don’t mind the bizarre rejects if they’re ten seconds and out – a better idea would be a 2-3 minute montage on a later show prior to the finals or save them all for a DVD extra. And the product placement didn’t bother me except (again) as a waste of valuable air time…the judges clearly mocked the obvious and I was fine with that (same way 30 Rock occasionally laughs at its own product placement). Better purposefully broad and clever than subconcious and subversive.

         Even when I’m getting to see the auditions I realize that I’m not seeing everything in its proper place and time. I’m just happy that the upcoming shows will skip the drama of the comedy house and the absurd challenges and instead focus on the comedy.

         As to the humor – and the controversy – I feel there are plenty of great jokes about ethnicity, race and tragedy but the art is being clever and original enough to mine it for an honest laugh. I don’t know enough about Leggero’s material, but Kindler and Geraldo certainly don’t have sacred cows in their own routines. If you as comics know you were edited (and not well) it’s logical that the judges have similar issues with their words being spliced and diced out of context.

         Just let the comics go up there and take their best shot; funny will be funny and if a joke sucks, it sucks. This isn’t rocket science – are people laughing or not? And you’re not going to be pushing the envelope with language on a network show airing at 9pm on a Monday night. I bet the most “offensive” joke they’ve screened still looks like Shakespeare next to 90% of the dialogue on other reality shows.

2. M Dickson says:

   June 23, 2010 at 9:19 pm

   As a comic that was featured in the montage (mine was the line about Jesus being the last Jew to do manual labor) – I’m not at all as put out by it as everyone else seems to be. Was it a waste of air time? Sure. Do I think it has any negative impact on me or my career? No, of course not. It was a stupid gag – ending with Andy being edited in a way that was far more offensive than anything Louis Katz or I said (Apologies to the third comic, I don’t know who she was).I’ve received positive attention from people who heard the joke and liked it – people who wouldn’t have seen me on NBC otherwise – which is a point Myq touched on above. At the end of the day it’s a reality television show and being edited in an unfavorable way is a risk you take when getting involved.

   Reply
   • Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

     June 23, 2010 at 10:26 pm

     We’re glad you have a sense of humor about your experience.

     We’re still sticking with the idea that you would have benefited more by being portrayed in a positive light.

     Reply
3. Mike says:

   June 23, 2010 at 9:55 pm

   Myq Kaplan says: “This article offers forth the statistic that almost half of the homeless population is seriously mentally ill, and that’s certainly through no fault of their own.”

   No fault? Really? No fault? I would say that MANY of those half are at least partially responsible since mental illness can often be caused by abusing drugs and alcohol. Were the drugs injected, and the alcohol poured, into the victims while they were napping? No. They did it on their own. This coming from a reformed alcohol abuser.
   Either way, every comic should be able to joke about whatever the heck they want. Just be funny.
   BTW, good luck to those that are on LCS. (Obviously you know the outcome.) This is the first time that I’ve watched in years.

   Reply
   • Myq Kaplan says:

     June 24, 2010 at 12:08 pm

     I stand by the assessment that SERIOUS mental illness (which is what the article is discussing) is generally out of the sufferer’s control. We’re talking about schizophrenia, severe depression caused by chemical imbalances, and very often PTSD (in the case of a large percentage of homeless folks who are veterans, a condition which I’d say is also largely through no fault of their own).

     I’m glad your alcohol abuse has been reformed, but I would say that your experience is not necessarily representative of all serious mental disorder.

     That said, of course anyone can joke about anything they want, and anyone else can find said jokes funny or objectionable or anywhere in between. Or both.

     PS Chris Rock’s most recent special has a joke (that may have been discussed here before) regarding the direction of humor across power inequities. Paraphrasing the idea, he basically says that it’s cooler for fat people to mock skinny people, for poor people to mock rich people, for ugly people to mock beautiful people, for the disenfranchised to mock the privilege, than it is in the reverse. (e.g. Things like “BLACK History Month, where’s WHITE History Month? Boohoo.”)
     Again, I would submit that Chris Rock is not PRESCRIBING that NO ONE can ever make a joke in the other direction, but just DESCRIBING a dynamic that makes sense (to me, anyhow), all other things being equal. Of course there can be funny and effective jokes with any target or topic, but there’s nothing wrong with having individual tastes on subjects such as this, and expressing them (either as a judge on a reality show, or as a human being on a blog).

     Reply
4. Kirk says:

   June 25, 2010 at 3:43 pm

   Wow, no comment at all about the hug you gave to the female half? Go watch it again, you arm made this gynormous orbit around her as you moved in. Did she used to be taller or something?

   I thought you both did well, but it seemed to me like Greg was saying he didn’t like either of your auditions in front of the 3 judges, but knew what you could do. BETTUH REKKA_NIZE! He knew y’all have an ass load more experience at stand-up than he does, and showed the proper respect.

   Kudos to both of you, and congrats Brian.

   Reply
5. Eric I says:

   July 13, 2010 at 8:41 am

   One of my favorite jokes of all time (written by the brilliant Dwight York) goes like this:

   “I was homeless for awhile.

   But I didn’t want anyone to know.

   So I slept in front of a Ticketmaster.”

   I would LOVE to hear an cogent argument defending the position that *that* particularly INOFFENSIVE yet brilliant joke ought to be demonized, or even discouraged from being told in a contest.

   There is absolutely NOTHING about that joke that could reasonably be seen as objectionable to a reasonable person, in my strong opinion.

   It’s simply a great observation, articulated extremely well.

   I have a joke of my own which SOMETIMES offends some people, but I really don’t think it should:

   “Socrates said ‘Know Thyself’

   And I think I do.

   Like when it comes to looks, I know I’m NOT gorgeous.

   But I’m not ugly either – I’m somewhere in between.

   Like – put it this way – I could probably have sex with . . . Ninety . . . Eight percent of all women.

   BUT – I am NOT so good-looking that I could have with . . . their consent.”

   That SOUNDS like a rape joke, but no one gets raped in the joke – rape is NOT being made light of, the ‘R’ word isn’t even used, and in fact, I would argue that the joke is even a tad self-deprecatory.

   I think that people ought to stop focussing so much about naughty buzzwords and instead focus more on WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR JOKE THAT MAKES IT SMART/ORIGINAL/FUNNY?

   Because many many great jokes, might SOUND racist/cruel/sexist, etc., when, in actuality, they’re actually merely excellently written jokes employing the age-old formula of Misdirection. Or Point Of View. Or Literal/Figurative. “Formulaic” seems to be a dirty word in the comedy world, but in my strong opinion, ALL of the best jokes employ formula(s).

   The difference between a great joke and a not-so-good joke, to me, largely hinges upon how well the comic employs his or her formula of choice, and/or how many formulas the comic employs well (i.e., increased degree of difficulty/originality) . . . in order to get the desired response from the audience – in most cases – SURPRISE.

   Good conversation.

   – Eric I

   Reply
   • Brian McKim & Traci Skene says:

     July 13, 2010 at 9:39 am

     Eric I:

     This is the perfect comment, the perfect summary of what we’ve been saying (or trying to say).

     We’re comedians. We’re often the bad boys/girls of entertainment. We deal with words and ideas. Quite often a joke will be enhanced because it sounds racist/sexist/cruel. But then, in the end, it’s… a… joke! That’s all part of what we do– and one element of the formula is… relief. Relief in that the audience is fearful that our statement will be offensive, but in the end, it isn’t offensive. Surprise and relief– two of the weapons in our arsenal.

     Reply