The Aristocrats saga continues
Editors note: When we first posted this, we mis-identified the Paul in the story as Reiser, instead of Provenza. We know the difference, we just mixed up our Pauls. Our spies on the west coast assure us the film is not a mockumentary. We will render a further judgement if/when we get copy on DVD. Yes, that is a hint.
The Wall Street Journal has entered the fray. We’ve been hearing buzz about a short film, created by Penn Jillette and Paul Provenza, that purports to tell and re-tell a joke that has allegedly been making the rounds of comedians for years. We here have been in the business for a combined 40+ years, but we’ve never heard it. Which doesn’t mean it hasn’t been out there, but we’re skeptical. (That, and we’re naturally skeptical of anything Jillette has any involvement in– he makes a living fooling people, after all.) With all this in mind (and while currently downloading the animated version via our sluggish dial-up connection), we give you this excerpt from the WSJ article:
One of the most unusual movies at this month’s Sundance Film Festival seems like it should be a sure thing: It features some of Hollywood’s most beloved comedians, from Robin Williams, Whoopi Goldberg and Phyllis Diller to Jon Stewart and Chris Rock. Its filmmakers include Penn Jillette, half of the magician-comedian team of Penn & Teller. It is already getting buzz, thanks to a short clip starring characters from South Park that’s going around the Internet. Still, the movie has yet to find a distributor.
The problem, maintains the WSJ (and everyone who has written about the joke lately), is that the joke is “so extremely off-color it is rarely told in public.” Say what? This is yet another thing that stinks about this whole affair. Can anyone recall a joke that is so “off-color” that it’s rarely told in public?! (And, has either Jillette or Reiser or Goldberg or the others been visited by the Secret Service? Just kidding.)
Another problem, says the WSJ, “It’s a documentary that consists of nothing but the telling, retelling and discussion of the same joke.” Problem? We’re of the opinion that documentaries, if done right, can be compelling about the most mundane of subjects. We are documentary freaks. We would say that two of the most enjoyable rentals we’ve watched over the past year or so have been “Theremin,” a docu on the inventor of the obscure instrument that bears his name, and “Capturing the Friedmans,” a docu on a family torn apart by accusations of child molestation. Being a documentary, no matter what the subject matter, is not, in and of itself, a “problem.”
One other thing: The documentary is described further as “a deconstruction of the joke, as well as a meditation on stand-up comedy and censorship.” Censorship? Where? Who, in this country, believes that there exists a joke that is too dirty to tell in public? Redd Foxx is smiling down on us from above. The mention of censorship is another red flag that signals “hoax.” Add to all this the fact that there’s been no advance screening of the film which, says the WSJ, is “rare” for Sundance. Hmmmm…
We are betting that it’s a “mockumentary.” (Which we have no trouble with.) But it is probably mocking the conventions of documentaries, as opposed to making any real points about censorship in America. At least it is hoped.
This just in: It finally downloaded. It’s… Let’s put it this way: It’s Otto & George with no punchlines, no craft, no art. You know how hard it is for Otto & George to get booked in this country. (Our face still hurts from his closing set at the Victory Theater at the Chicago Fest a coupla years back!) When was the last time Doug Stanhope was prevented from performing anywhere in the U.S.? (How many Americans under the age of 45 are even passingly familiar with the phrase “banned in Boston?”) We’ll wait and see if this is a hoax.
No Responses
Reply to: The Aristocrats saga continues
This is a legitimate joke. I’ve seen it performed before… Gilbert Gottfried did a version of it at the Hugh Hefner Roast a few years ago. (It never made it to air but I saw it with my own two eyes.) It’s basically a joke contest with the winner being who can tell the most depraved version… the structure is left open for the improved description of the Aristocrats’ filthy act. The joke is a real phenomenon.
Todd Jackson
http://www.dead-frog.com
We interviewed Emery Emery, the comic who edited The Aristocrats. How it was shot, how it was edited, how it turned out, etc. Click here:
http://www.sheckymagazine.com/emeryem.htm
I first heard “The Aristocrats” in 1965, told to me by two folk singers in a group I’d joined. It’s basically a setup where a guy walks into an agent’s office and proceeds to describe The Family Act, revealing a disgustingly low level of depravity so crude, and told in a matter-of-fact manner, it left me rolling on the floor. At the end, when the agent asks what the name of the act is, the father says, “The Aristocrats”.It’s primarily a joke that is always embellished upon, using the joke teller’s creative sense of the Truly Depraved Aspects of Human Sexuality. It’s not funny because of the premise. It’s funny because of the telling of the joke.