Looks like the Kennedy Center special giving Jon Stewart the Mark Twain prize has finally aired.















 

I can't think of anyone better to celebrate South Park's anniversery than Primus and Ween.



 

I think some of you may have noticed that Louis CK is making his comeback, slowly rolling through the podsphere, self-releasing new sets and a new movie and filming a documentary on his controversy for Paramount.  Some are already trying to organize boycotts against Paramount.  I try to point out that had Louis been criminally charged, either for indecent exposure or sexual harassment, he would be out of jail by now.  Not to defend Louis' prior actions, but it's a pertinent question of when and how he should be allowed to work again.  (And, honestly, he never really stopped, so the question might be more "when and how should he be allowed back onto mainstream corporate platforms.)

Again, not to defend Louis so much, except to say that I recognize a certain spectrum of offenses here, and it's pretty clear that the severity of the reaction to Louis' comeback is less proportionate to his offenses and far more proportionate to the fame he enjoyed before he was outed.  It isn't hard to find examples of other comedians, since Louis' fiasco, who have had similar or worse accusations, and who ducked out of the public eye for a few months, only to emerge when the short public attention span had waned, and have continued to work largely unscathed.  Chris D'elia, Bryan Callan, James Veitch, Thomas Middleditch.  Now I know what you're thinking: Who the fuck?  That's my point.  They can get away with because they're not famous, but yet they still work more frequently and less controversially than Louis.  And all of them were accused of something worse than sexual exhibitionism, which is grooming underage fans (classic R. Kelly style).  So my question is: what's the perspective here?

Exhibit A is more troubling because you can't use his obscurity as cover: Jeff Ross.  There's an old saying about comedy clubs that if you want to know how to get in touch with the local drug dealer, spot the unfunny guy who somehow always gets booked.  That's Jeff Ross in a nutshell.  Ross has power in the comedy industry, a long-standing producer, for Def Jam (Oh! Russell!) and a top executive at Comedy Central in the 00s, running their increasingly lame version of the Friar's Club Roasts (ie, not the Friar's Club Roasts, which continued in tandem without being televised, but somehow getting away with using the name) which, in the valley of its nadir, involved such top-notch comic talent as Pamela Anderson, Charlie Sheen, Donald Trump and Justin Bieber.  In other words, it turned an comedy-insider event into a celebrity suck-fest, and it was all due to the guidance of one Jeffery Ross, who has the shriveled testicles to dare call himself the "new Don Rickles".

So, I admit, I'm not an impartial party on this jury.  Had Jeff Ross displayed something akin to talent in his career, then maybe I would find it more troubling that he's had multiple credible (documented) accustations of grooming and fucking underage girls.  "That was his girlfriend-type.  He had that reputation."  That article is two years old, and Ross has not suffered the loss of a single gig, and continues to produce multiple mediocre comedy specials for Netflix today.  No hashtags, no walkouts, no reckonings.  Now, I understand that Ross has denied the charges.  So did Aziz Ansari.  But no one is going to say that Ross was ever as well-known or as respected as Ansari or Louis CK, but the broad gulf between the nature of these accusations is quite telling.  While we debate the future of Louis' stand-up, and generally creative, career, someone like Jeff Ross can walk untouched and unbothered.  Maybe we should recognize that there's something really fucked up about that.

I just watched that Morrill special and, yes, he's good.

And don't even get me started on the CK stuff. Its always hard to talk about it because what he did wasn't irrelevant (like Ansari) and I don't want to make it seem like he didn't deserve some fall out. But how many years is the guy supposed to be exiled.

I tried to ask Takoma the very question you bring up ( how long a punishment is enough before he's allowed to continue doing what he does, considering even convictions have end dates) and the answer was of course always dodged. And that people who support his comedy in the future are outright bad.

This is what is so aggravating about these things. Not just for those who can never get out from under the cloud of their bad behavior, but how fiercely you are not even allowed to discuss them. Whatever the most extreme and punitive response to them is permitted, and any discussion that doesn't accept this is viewed as being in tandem with a sexual offender.

Basically, these arguments of theirs seem less and less valid when they don't so much argue against dissent, but try and shame and threat those who may have different views on how we view the idea of redemption.

Rampop II wrote:

The new one? “Same Time Next Week?“

I just wrote the name, dude.

Jinnistan wrote:

Rampop II wrote:

The new one? “Same Time Next Week?“

I just wrote the name, dude.

Ah, so you did. I've been trying to keep up. Blame it on the brain damage. 

So, if I disclose my ranking of Same Time Next Week by comparison to his other specials, does that count as a spoiler? Sometimes it does in my case. But if anyone is willing to read on, I'll spill it because I think it's noteworthy, and because it's just so hard to keep my opinions to myself:

Spoiler(?):
Same Time Next Week is plenty funny but is his weakest imo but I think it's only due to pain meds. Two ruptured cervical discs! That is very serious, and the pain is, in no uncertain terms, debilitating. He did say he was in a lot of pain during that show and I don't doubt it for a second. Meds do little to alleviate that kind of pain but doctors prescribe them for what it's worth. I thought Sam seemed kind of sedate. The fact that he pulled off a special under such conditions is extraordinary. Anybody who liked Same Time Next Week will be glad they dug deeper, and imo I Got This should not be missed. 

And I gotta wonder how Sam got an injury like that. Disc trouble rarely just happens on its own, and as far as I know it's not an occupational hazard for standup comedy.

Last edited by Rampop II (9/06/2022 3:42 pm)

Rampop II wrote:

Blame it on the brain damage.

Oh damn

Patton Oswalt: We All Scream

If you can't say something nice...  There's a couple decent bits here and there, but this feels like he's still trying to work out raw material, and probably needed a few more months on the road getting this weak shit into shape, and maybe in a smaller venue where the smaller laughs aren't completely lost in the acoustics.  So half-baked bits + shitty production values = one sad state of affairs.  You know it's bad when Oswalt goes into doing crowd work , either out of his own boredom or in some desperate attempt to engage his soft-ass audience.  I don't know what the Netflix policy on these things are, but I've noticed that they tend to release these things when it's clear that it's sub-par, maybe for the financial convenience of not having to film a do-over. 

5/10
 

Who Killed Santa? A Murderville Murder Mystery

I like Will Arnett a lot, and this has gotten me in trouble before, because it's been clear for awhile that the post-GOB Will Arnett is consistently undiscerning when it comes to his choice of projects, from Lego game shows to Reeses pimp.  Murderville is another example of lost potential, but, even as lame as the regular show was, it was usually short and disposable enough to be inoffensive.  The Christmas special however really manages to accentuate what an empty-headed exercise it is, and a painful reminder of how few actual laughs it produces.  Arnett does his best as a gruff old school detective.  The premise is something like dinner theater mystery, with a steady stream of clues punctuated by improvisation.  Surprisingly, the show is genuine as a mystery - one of the funniest highlights of the show was Sharon Stone overconfidently falling flat on her face.  And one would think the improv would be a slamdunk considering the talent.  I suspect there's a lot of entertaining outtakes, but whatever the case very little funny business makes it into the final product.  The editing is cutesy-atrocious.  They want  the audience to know how much fun they're having, with lots of mugging and silliness, but just not a lot of genuinely funny moments.  It's ideal for the kind of audience whose favorite part of SNL is when the players crack up (ie, lowest common denominator comedy).  It would be better, perhaps, with less editing or no editing at all, performed live akin to Whose Line Is It Anyway?.  It's hard to imagine there being a whole lot more dull and dead moments than what's in this final product.  And like an ambassador of unfunny, we get Pete Davidson show up for the last five minutes to do absolutely nothing funny whatsoever.  Not a failure, he didn't even try to do anything except smirk and look out of place, but thanks for stopping by and I suppose he was a thrill for fans of Us Weekly or whoever gives a shit.  I guess it's working because the show seems to be a hit.  I still like Arnett, but he deserves better, or at least a better agent, a natural comic instrument who needs more solid direction to apply his skill.

5/10