Mary Hicks on Letterman last night
It was anti-climactic.
Dave seemed weak, almost hoarse during his monologue. (Perhaps it was the HD TV we watched it on, but he seemed weary and older. We haven’t watched the show in some time, so maybe it was just that we forgot what Dave looked like.)
We have a theory: The bit that got Hicks’ set yanked wasn’t the anti-Pro-Lifer bit (that was actually pretty innocuous, when you analzye it), but the opening joke, the one where he advocates hunting Billy Ray Cyrus down.
Folks sometimes forget that when the show moved from NBC to CBS, it also dropped down from 12:30 AM to 11:30 PM. There was much fretting about whether Letterman’s humor and style would play well in the new time slot– and conversely, it was said that Letterman’s style was better-suited to the later slot. (In similar fashion, so do folks worry about Conan O’Brien’s new timeslot.)
The new time slot was probably the most important factor in the decision to cut the set. You can put a shotgun in someone’s mouth and pull the trigger at 1:24 AM (maybe), but you can’t put a shotgun in someone’s mouth an hour earlier. That was a Late Night set, not a Late Show set.
The images, the suggestions, are rather violent (even though they’re clearly meant as a joke), but folks get antsy when a comic advocates such violence. (And Hicks added the extra graphic details–“…catch that fruity little ponytail of his, pull him to his Chippendale’s knees, put a shotgun in his mouth and ‘pow'”)
Perhaps whoever vetted the set failed to make the adjustment– an hour’s difference is significant when it comes to standards and practices. The set should never have been approved in the first place.
It’s not a stretch to think that the folks who represent Cyrus (and the other celebrities targeted in the opening bit– Markie Mark, M.C. Hammer, Michael Bolton) had some “input” into the decision– explicitly or implicitly. Advocating the brutal murder of three or four of the biggest-selling recording artists of the previous four or five years might make a giant firm like ICM or William Morris a bit… testy. And you don’t want to alienate them if you’re a new show on a new network. (By October of ’93, Vanilla Ice was well along his way into oblivion, so we figure no one spoke up for him.)
Or was it the “Daddy’s New Roommate” bit? Political correctness had reached a peak at just about the time Hicks’s 12th appearance on the show was taped. It’s possible that the bit, though far from “homophobic,” could have conceivably make some flinch in 1993, such was the sensitivity at the time.
Hicks had made quite a name for himself tweaking those who might squirm– on both the left and the right– so it isn’t a slam dunk that his set was axed because of the pro-life bit or the Easter bunny bit. It might well have been a collision of commerce, violence, ideology and hyper-sensitivity that precipitated the decision. (And, in any event, we would argue that what took place cannot be described as “censorship.” A calamitous series of bad decisions by several parties, perhaps, but not censorship.)
After seeing the set, and keeping in mind the context, it’s completely understandable why it might have been excised from the broadcast. And again it’s totally baffling that the set was vetted in the first place.
Re-running it might have been a bad move for the show. Letterman looked weary last night and viewers might have gotten the idea that perhaps he wasn’t as cutting edge as we all thought 15 years ago when the incident originally took place.
Dave says he felt guilty. We would say that he had little reason to feel guilty because– as was pointed out on the show last night– Hicks had been on the network showcase 11 times prior. Letterman may have done more than anyone to certify Hicks as a comedy star. And, had Hicks lived, the bumped routine would have added to his legend and cemented his reputation as a rebel. (The fact that he died soon after the incident is something that Letterman could not have foreseen and is something therefore that could not have been factored into the decision.)
We would have preferred to have seen the set presented in the context of a tribute to the artist, a celebration, perhaps, of a comedian who had appeared on the show multiple times in the space of eight or nine years. And we could have done without the apologies– we’re well aware that Hicks was allegedly crushed by the exclusion from the show, but we’re inclined to believe that was the cancer talking, a classic case of displacement, perhaps. After all, Hicks wore such slights as a badge of honor. The 39-page letter that Hicks sent to The New Yorker reporter seems out of character for a guy who called for genocide for the whole of humanity and called Hitler an underachiever.
Putting all that aside, watching the performance of a man who died 148 days later was quite dramatic and tragic. Knowing that he knew that he was staring death in the face made it all that much more bizarre and poignant.
6 Responses
Reply to: Mary Hicks on Letterman last night
anti-climactic? To me, it seemed cathartic for both Dave and Mrs. Hicks. We’ve heard Bill’s material in that set in other places, so I wasn’t anticipating something spectacular or new there. The payoff, to me, was them finally playing that clip after all these years.
That should have read “sort of homophobic.”
I thought Letterman showed a lot of class, taking responsibility for cutting the set in the first place and not blaming his producer, or Standards and Practices, or something. Mary Hicks didn’t let him off the hook, either.
That said, I thought the set was just so-so. Certainly not the best he performed that particular material. Ironic that kind of a half-assed set became a thing of legend, yeah?
And speaking of sensibilities…I actually had the opposite reaction to the Daddy’s New Roommate bit (and the “gay men dance” bit). I kind of thought, “Wow…even free-thinker, God-is-love Bill Hicks was homophobic back in the day.”
I don’t know that the “gay men dancing” joke would qualify as even semi-homophobic. It’s kind of a cheap gag, but it’s a throwaway line that seems to have no real intent behind it. Especially in the context of the Heather’s Two Mommies bit, which seems to me mocking homophobia and the selectiveness of it than anything else. The joke isn’t about guys kissing being wrong, it’s a joke about people who think guys kissing is wrong but being hypocrites about it.
As clearly evidenced, I think, by the rope-a-dope nature of the line. What I found interesting was how vocally the audience fell for the bait-and-switch. Hicks does the first bit about how there should be some kind of a line and how its disgusting that homosexual guys would make their sex lives public (obviously something Hicks doesn’t believe), and a not insignificant people hooted and cheered. It was creepy and sounded way more out of date than anything in the actual set. Homophobes still exist, but I don’t think they’d applaud and shout in a David Letterman audience nowadays.
“Phobia” or the suffix “-phobic” is way too strong a word. It actually has a meaning (although that meaning has been obscured and destroyed by casual use of the term), and that meaning probably doesn’t apply here. (Which is probably why Timmy Mac appended his comments to read “sort of homophobic.”)
Having said that, the case could be made that the folks hooting and cheering in the audience during the taping were Hicks’ confederates. (Not all of those cheering, but a good number of them.) And that the rest of those cheering were Hicks’ fans. (Hicks fans egged him on in most of his performances. Especially when he got revved up. They pretty much know that a switch or a punchline is coming. Not an indication of any animosity toward those with alternative lifestyles, but some folks turning Hicks’ set into more of a revival. Somewhat akin to an audience shouting “YEAH! YEAH!” if a comedian were to preface a joke by saying, “Don’t you just hate those senior citizens who drive slowly?” Of course, no real enmity exists, perhaps mild annoyance, but the audience is in on the gag and they provide the “comedy helper” to fuel the faux outrage.)
It is interesting to note that folks seem more upset at any “homophobia” (real or imagined) when, in the very same set, Hicks was “advocating” the brutal slaying of a man (a father of three) whose only crime was having a ubiquitous hit single a full 18 months prior. Of course, he was advocating no such thing, but his revulsion and his disproportionate prescription was Hicks’ stock in trade. Were the folks who laughed uproariously at Marky Mark being slain, execution-style somehow displaying a deep-seated hatred? No, not at all. They were matching Hicks’ amped-up emotions.
Thanks to all for the comments.
Letterman had Pro-Life sponsors at the time. Hicks himself said he felt that was the reason.