“Mock Stars” reviewed
Steve Macone wrote a concise review of John Wenzel’s “Mock Stars” in Blast Magazine.
(We referred to Wenzel in our publication here, in a post titled “Let’s be independent together!” Thus ensued a spirited back-and-forth between and among ourselves and our readers.)
Wenzel sent along an advance, uncorrected copy of his book to SHECKYmagazine HQ, which The Female Half just finished. We fully intended to pen a review of our own, but it’s difficult to improve upon Macone’s words which contain insights like this one:
To be sure, there are comedy clubs today that can not be called anything near mainstream. A certain club I’m partial to in Cambridge, Mass., has a bit of a reputation for cheap covers, discerning crowds and artistic freedom. And anyone can see the inherent danger of blindly extolling any indie trend: We’re not like them! We do things however we want here-no rules! Wait, where’s your band t-shirt and faux, preemptive cynicism? The same goes for pigeon-holing performers as mainstream. Last Sunday, I watched a local comic destroy with a playful, absurdist, sprawling bit about ham. It didn’t pander at all. And the audience was obviously grateful for it. It killed. Was it at a rock club full hipsters? Nope, it was a crowd of 250+ people, locals in the sense of the word that would make most comics shiver with images of impenetrable stoicism– in a place where comics traditionally do more safe material than even mainstream clubs: a Knights of Columbus hall. Sometimes it’s about being a good comedian wherever you perform.
We recommend that anyone who is in comedy (or into comedy) pick up “Mock Stars.” Because it’s always good to read about standup. And the tales of the D.I.Y. attitude that is a hallmark of the indie scene is truly inspirational and their projects admirable.
But while the book is ostensibly about a fresh, new movement in the art/craft of standup, it doesn’t take us long (Page 2 of the Introduction!) before we see:
(Indie comedy)’s for anyone who finds most mainstream comedy boring, irrelevant, insulting or worse– soul-destroying.
Emphasis ours. We’re not seven paragraphs into the book before we encounter one of our favorite indie/alt clichés! When we see an alt/indie comic take the stage on our TV, we take bets on the over/under– how many minutes into the set before he uses the phrase “soul-crushing?” We’re usually not disappointed. (It’s much like our bet on how long it takes Robin Williams to use the “You’re pants are so tight, I can tell your religion!”)
And therein lies the central contradiction of the book (and perhaps the central contradiction or hypocrisy of the indie/alt movement at large)– in their zeal to put some distance between themselves and “mainstream” (or boring, irrelevant, insulting) comedians, they are blind to their own shortcomings and unnecessarily hostile toward those who came before them.
8 Responses
Reply to: “Mock Stars” reviewed
Thanks for the post. I thought Steve Macone’s review of my book was pretty accurate (although an editor would have picked off a few of his more notable run-on sentences). I’m also hard-pressed to disagree with his critique that I breezed over some things and spent too much time on others. There’s so much scholarship on comedy history out there and I was reluctant to retread too much of it.But I also realize a book is a self-contained universe, and more context probably would have been beneficial in making certain points (although the intro would have been more unweildy and diffuse for it).I will say that when I refer to “soul-destroying” comedy, I wasn’t just parroting an oft-used phrase in the indie world. I was reinforcing how certain sitcoms, stand-ups, sketch shows, etc. not only fail to challenge the worst aspects of convention, they reinforce it. To me, that just throws a bucket of piss on the raging fire that is good comedy.As I say in the book, good comedy tends to be groundbreaking, challenging, and moves the art form forward. But it doesn’t necessarily NEED to be any of those things. Overall, it just needs to be funny. (A subjective term, I know).And it may go without saying, but (as I also say in the book) good comedy is not the province of DIY stand-ups or hipster comedians. These are just the people that are lately bringing it to an audience typically underserved by stand-up and live sketch. The comedy world is a rich, diverse one and indie comedy is just a sliver of it.In any event, I hope Shecky will judge “Mock Stars” by its final version and not the uncorrected proof the Female Half just finished reading. As you can guess, there are more than a few things in there that were changed/corrected, and dozens of pages that were added.
I agree with the good folks at Shecky. Wenzel says it’s “certain sitcoms, stand-ups, sketch shows, etc. [that] not only fail to challenge the worst aspects of convention, they reinforce it.” My problem is this: why hold up the worst of mainstream comedy as an example of ALL mainstream comedy. It’s equally as bad to hold up the worst, most amateurish, self-indulgent alt-com/indie acts as an example of ALL alt-com/indie acts. Funny is funny no matter what genre it’s a part of. There’s no need to tear down one in order to build up the other.
The “soul-destroying” line in the book wasn’t necessarily me barking out my own opinion, but an observation on the audience demographics for indie comedy.The audience I’m writing about in “Mock Stars” tends to dislike or even hate the majority of mainstream comedy. And not just because they’re divorcing the content from the popularity and hating it simply BECAUSE it’s popular, but because they like to see how its popularity reflects its watered-down tone, lack of inventiveness and risk-taking, its subtle misogyny, racism, and homophobia, or any number of other attributes that help it appeal to the widest and most traditional possible audience.The people who would rather see Patton Oswalt in a rock club than Dave Chappelle in a comedy club, or who would rather watch Tim and Eric online than “Everybody Loves Raymond” on TV, are generally not consuming mainstream comedy at all because it doesn’t appeal to them.I’m not holding up the worst of mainstream comedy as an example of ALL comedy, I’m saying that the indie scene appeals to a certain audience specifically because that audience dislikes nearly all mainstream comedy in general. In other words, mainstream comedy is as bad to them as commercial radio is to a music elitist, or a corporate food chain like Applebees or Chili’s is to a hardcore foodie.
Could it be that the folks who despise the majority of mainstream comedy because “its popularity reflects its watered-down tone, lack of inventiveness and risk-taking, its subtle misogyny, racism, and homophobia” are… wrong?Have 18 to 24 year olds been right about anything for the past 50 years?Perhaps they have.Have they ever in the history of the planet arrived at any of these conclusions on their own (without having the conclusion spoonfed to them by the mainstream media, or some branch thereof)?We suppose that they don’t so much represent a movement as they do a trend. And it’s a trend that has been scrupulously crafted with the help of managers and agents. And the element of the trend that we take issue with is these scurrilous charges that much of what is outside the movement is misogynist or racist or, if you can imagine, worst.To totally dismiss an entire genre without at least seeing some of the good is, when you come right down to it, close-minded.It’s really no better than a starter kit for kids who want to be like Mom and Dad, who say that “All this music kids listen to is just noise!” Is there any significant difference? We think not.
This to me sounds like people who say they hate jazz. They just think they do. They hate what they know of jazz. But most of them like the music in Charlie Brown, for example, and it’s played by the Vince Guaraldi Trio. Jazz is all around us in the mainstream but people don’t think of it as jazz. My point being that these hipsters probably like — and love — their fair share of mainstream comedy without even recognizing it as such. Because to them they’ve already defined it as something lame, watered-down, myogynist, homophobic or whatever. If you’re including those aspects in the definition of mainstream comedy, then of course it’s something to despise. The problem is in the definition. Do they love Patton Oswalt only when he’s playing a rock club? What about when he moves over to a comedy club or a theatre? Does it matter he was on King of Queens? He’s the same dude.
Well, I feel like this has become too much about the the mainstream vs. indie thing, and while that’s certainly a big part of the scene’s identity, I’m also not trying pigeonhole all indie comedy fans or mainstream fans or ceiling fans as something they’re not. (I think I probably overstated that in that second comment I left.)You guys make good points, and in fact I asked Brian from Shecky to remove my last comment because it was long-winded and came off as hostile, which I didn’t intend. Any movement that defines itself in reaction to another is bound to come with its own contradictions and complexities, and I actually talk about that in the book (i.e. indie music fans not having a sense of humor, the ghettoization of certain genres, etc.)In any event, thanks for being interested enough to debate the topic. Minus the hardcore comedy blogs, it’s rare (but encouraging) to see people engaged enough to think deeply about what makes good stand-up.
I love seeing these subjects discussed and debated. That’s why I’m an avid reader of this blog, and that’s also why I purchased the book from Amazon (overnight delivery) and started reading it today.As far as making distinctions or trying to define comedians, I just think of it like this: some comedians are passionate about what they’re doing, and some do seem “soul-less.”I stepped onto the stage this past January for the first time (ten years after I first wanted to do it–I only wish I hadn’t waited so long) and my goal has been to learn how to be as funny as possible, while being true. Someone said that art is “telling the truth with a clever lie” (or something like that), and I think standup comedy might be the most difficult art, because the “clever lie” should be hilarious.Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
It is great to see the author comment to this piece, as you can see Blast tries to write a little bit of everything and it’d be great to have more comedy related pieces, so anyone out there write up! http://www.BlastMagazine.com