Offline
crumbsroom wrote:
I think you're being too kind by even mentioning Gervais' good time up on the stage.
It's not a good sign when he walks out, already applauding himself. But by about the fifth time he fakes having a brilliant but clearly pre-written "improv" thought occur to him, it's beyond grating.
A lot of the reviews are taking issue with his piss-poor politics, which I could overlook if the jokes were well-crafted (and less self-congratulatory). But because of his condescending air of seemingly being the most intelligent person in the room, he probably should take maybe two minutes to read a couple of paragraphs about CRT before offering to misdefine it for everyone else. Otherwise, I guess I should just assume that he doesn't care to, anymore than he cares about Africans in their "mud huts".
Offline
Jinnistan wrote:
crumbsroom wrote:
I think you're being too kind by even mentioning Gervais' good time up on the stage.
It's not a good sign when he walks out, already applauding himself. But by about the fifth time he fakes having a brilliant but clearly pre-written "improv" thought occur to him, it's beyond grating.
A lot of the reviews are taking issue with his piss-poor politics, which I could overlook if the jokes were well-crafted (and less self-congratulatory). But because of his condescending air of seemingly being the most intelligent person in the room, he probably should take maybe two minutes to read a couple of paragraphs about CRT before offering to misdefine it for everyone else. Otherwise, I guess I should just assume that he doesn't care to, anymore than he cares about Africans in their "mud huts".
The politics, and his grasp of the things he is talking about, certainly isn't great, but as said, I could live with some of it if he was actually saying anything worth listening to. But the fact that those who are actually offended by Gervais' politics, keep going after him with the same tact of trying to shame his insensitivity, when it's exactly what he wants, and what the people in his audience applaud him for, is more reason for me not to listen to anyone who is talking. The fact the ones who want to actually hurt him don't think to go after what he would be most sensitive to (that his comedy fucking sucks and he's beyond washed up at this point), just shows how toothless their tactics are. Sure, go ahead, slap him on the wrist for not using inclusive enough language, you idiot twats.
Offline
crumbsroom wrote:
The politics, and his grasp of the things he is talking about, certainly isn't great, but as said, I could live with some of it if he was actually saying anything worth listening to. But the fact that those who are actually offended by Gervais' politics, keep going after him with the same tact of trying to shame his insensitivity, when it's exactly what he wants, and what the people in his audience applaud him for, is more reason for me not to listen to anyone who is talking. The fact the ones who want to actually hurt him don't think to go after what he would be most sensitive to (that his comedy fucking sucks and he's beyond washed up at this point), just shows how toothless their tactics are. Sure, go ahead, slap him on the wrist for not using inclusive enough language, you idiot twats.
I saw where the AV Club was complaining that he had punchlines about "two genders". In fact, he had one joke about "two sexes", and the fact that they misquoted him only proves his point for him.
But the comedy was so stale and smug. I only had one laugh through the whole thing, on the final shot, a wide shot of the theater, and you could see how fast the audience was leaving their seats.
Offline
Jinnistan wrote:
I saw where the AV Club was complaining that he had punchlines about "two genders". In fact, he had one joke about "two sexes", and the fact that they misquoted him only proves his point for him.
It's almost shocking how rarely anyone, on either side of this debate, has ever learned the definitions of the two core words that this whole argument is based upon.
Oh, that's right, it's not shocking at all. Clearly something has happened with the internet where actual information has become so devalued, because it is so technically accessible, that no one bothers to look anything up anymore. I guess there is no pride in actually being informed anymore. Just being visible on this stupid fucking computer world.
But the comedy was so stale and smug. I only had one laugh through the whole thing, on the final shot, a wide shot of the theater, and you could see how fast the audience was leaving their seats.
It seems the special is at least getting some flack for being lazy ass work. Because he needs to be shamed at how uninspired this set was (I also really disliked his last one)
I've generally always liked Gervais' early work in television (he'll always get somewhat a pass from me for David Brent). I've mostly been spotty towards a lot of his stand up, since this lazy streak has always been somewhat part of his essence. Maybe it's even part of his appeal. But he would always have inspired moments. He's a naturally funny guy...but I think he now believes this is all he needs to coast on. There is virtually no craft to what he is doing anymore.
I always think back to his round table discussion with a bunch of other (better) comedians (I think CK, Seinfeld, Rock...Burr?) and Gervais just sticks out like a gawking knob. They are all having a nuanced conversation about the craft, all of them adding their valuable two cents, and he keeps interrupting with banal observations. One of these things clearly did not belong, and it seemed from the behavior of the other comedians, they agreed.
Offline
Dave Chappelle - Dreamer
Probably Dave's least funny special yet for Netflix, not contigent on his still provocative politics, just fewer genuine laughs this time around. But still funnier than 90% of Netflix's stand-up offerings, so obviously it's a curve. Just a little too comfortable.
7.5/10
Offline
Jinnistan wrote:
Dave Chappelle - Dreamer
Probably Dave's least funny special yet for Netflix, not contigent on his still provocative politics, just fewer genuine laughs this time around. But still funnier than 90% of Netflix's stand-up offerings, so obviously it's a curve. Just a little too comfortable.
7.5/10
My feelings are about the same. I might give it slightly higher rating since, frankly, I'm just happy to be in the presence of Chapelle's voice. His supreme level of confidence up there on state, his fearlessness, is such a rarity that it's almost all I need, even if this ultimately feels like second rate Chapelle.
And of course critics are zeroing in on the handful of trans jokes he scattered throughout the show, claiming that 'he's at it again' and 'has learned nothing'. It's almost like these things come pre-written. That they wouldn't have had a clue what to do if he hadn't mentioned the trans community at all.....other than congratulating him on not using trans jokes and how now he was back on the road to being a good and proper comedian.
And, frankly, I would have been happy if he never broached the subject again. But critics putting their hands in the air and not understanding why he would address the issue again, is fucking absurd. They have basically pigeon holed the guy as the 'anti trans guy'. He's been branded as a certain kind of villain among a large swathe of the comedy watching public. Comedians write from where they are coming from and their life experience. Is it really a surprise that he might acknowledge any of this? That he might make a joke about it?
If critics of Chapelle on this issue could actually argue why his particular jokes are inappropriate or harmful, then I'm all ears. I think it's fair to push back if one feels that he is unfairly targeting a marginalized group (I personally think there are a few that are questionable as well). But the fact that most criticisms are blanketed as 'you just can't joke about ANY of this' is when you lose me. Sorry, you don't get to remove yourself from being talked about when you have become one of the most talked about issues in the world these days. Fuck off with this shit.
Offline
crumbsroom wrote:
And of course critics are zeroing in on the handful of trans jokes he scattered throughout the show, claiming that 'he's at it again' and 'has learned nothing'. It's almost like these things come pre-written.
They also have to ignore a lot of the nuance, which I admire. If you look at the structure of the set, he's including transpeople among the "dreamers" that he's celebrating. He's just doing it while simultaneously taking a swipe at his critics on the subject. When he talks about that kind of "righteous anger" that can only come from innately knowing you're right - and he isn't talking about transpeople at all - but then he drops in "which is why gays are so mean", it's the kind of swipe that sounds hateful until you consider what he's saying. He's saying that gays (which Dave folds all of the "alphabet people" together") are right, but that their anger can sometimes be misplaced. This isn't any different from what he said in an earlier special, about how progressives risk alienating allies by automatically shaming them online because they haven't caught up to the accepted lingo and nomenclature yet.
And as for those (like AV Club) who are trying to hit him over his "ableist" jokes, just....please. I can't help anyone who hears him say, "These handicapped have had it too good for too long" and act like they don't understand why they shouldn't take that seriously.
Offline
Jinnistan wrote:
crumbsroom wrote:
And of course critics are zeroing in on the handful of trans jokes he scattered throughout the show, claiming that 'he's at it again' and 'has learned nothing'. It's almost like these things come pre-written.
They also have to ignore a lot of the nuance, which I admire. If you look at the structure of the set, he's including transpeople among the "dreamers" that he's celebrating. He's just doing it while simultaneously taking a swipe at his critics on the subject. When he talks about that kind of "righteous anger" that can only come from innately knowing you're right - and he isn't talking about transpeople at all - but then he drops in "which is why gays are so mean", it's the kind of swipe that sounds hateful until you consider what he's saying. He's saying that gays (which Dave folds all of the "alphabet people" together") are right, but that their anger can sometimes be misplaced. This isn't any different from what he said in an earlier special, about how progressives risk alienating allies by automatically shaming them online because they haven't caught up to the accepted lingo and nomenclature yet.
And as for those (like AV Club) who are trying to hit him over his "ableist" jokes, just....please. I can't help anyone who hears him say, "These handicapped have had it too good for too long" and act like they don't understand why they shouldn't take that seriously.
It's almost like these people haven't considered the possibility that maybe they are the target of the joke. No, it's definitely got to be those marginalized trans people. Not all these stupid internet dopes who are giant stupid fuckheads. Who would ever make fun of a thing like that?
Offline
It's obviously great to see Jon Stewart coming back (at least for one night a week) to Daily Show. Most Importantly, I think, is that as Executive Producer, Stewart will hopefully have the authority to restock that show's writing staff. Because the conspicuous issue last year, watching all of the various guest host auditions, was the common problem that all of the jokes sucked invariably. Some hosts were able to wing it on pure charm, but the material was uniformly awful. Hopefully, that will be the first and primary change that Stewart brings with him, even for those nights when he isn't hosting.
Also a return to pure media critique would be welcome. It doesn't mean that you can't take principled stands every now and again where appropriate, but not be afraid to call out "fake news" without worrying about being accused of siding with MAGA for doing so. Sometimes, many things can be true at once, particularly when corporate news is especially culpable in elevating and legitimizing MAGA inanity, as they were in 2016 before they thought about gaslighting the rest of us into not mentioning that sad fact of affairs.
Offline
Out of the reactions to Jon Stewart's return to the Daily Show, I think this Roling Stone piece offers the epitome of the misunderstanding for both why Stewart's humor and why it's necessary.
Note how the article puts "both sides are equally bad" in quotations even though this isn't an actual quote that Jon Stewart said. So it shouldn't then be surprising that it isn't even an accurate paraphrase either. I've also read where, on twitter, people like Keith Olbermann are calling Stewart a "bothsidesim fraud". The 2010 Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear has similarly been misattributed as blaming both sides of the polarized political discussion. What all of these partisan knuckleheads fail to understand is that Stewart's media critique has always been to skewer the very pretense that there are only two sides to the discussion, and satirizing how news media frames and limits our political discussion within this strict linear and artificially flat template. I suppose to some people this means blaming "both sides", because, yes, he's blaming this "crossfire" partisan script, rendering politics to tribal us/them teams, for stultifying more meaningful political discussion.
The country’s twenty-four-hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems, bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen. Or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous flaming ant epidemic. If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.
It was unfortunate in 2010 when pundits were unable to see the truth of this statement, back before the algorithms had a chance to take a hold and Trump was still a second-rate reality-TV star. But it's journalistic malpractice not to be able to look back see that Jon Stewart diagnosed the problem with our media which directly led to our polarization today and try to claim that what he's saying above is "both sides are equally bad". I imagine that several people in professional news media may have a guilty conscience about this.
Similarly, Jon Stewart's episode last night was not simply about Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and their ages and deficiencies, but more pointedly about how the media has shaped the narratives around the two. What he was saying is that "we need to have a different approach to how we're discussing the issue".
Offline
It seems that most of the critical pushback against Stewart's return appearance to Daily Show comes from those who are disappointed that Stewart has chosen not to be a partisan cheerleader, which happens to be identical to those critics of his Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear 13 years ago. Succinctly, I saw where progressive podcaster Sam Seder mention how he was never a fan of Daily Show for this reason, in his words, being more concerned with "media critique" than "being political" (ie, being explicitly activist). This is the core meaning behind the "both sides" perjorative, not that Jon Stewart's commentary is actually equally skewering of both sides, but simply that he doesn't resist skewering "our" side when it deserves to be. The implied logic is "both sides" is the opposite of "our side". In a way, it's fittingly ironic that Jon Stewart, our most prophetic critic of media-saturated polarization, is being criticized for refusing to participate in this polarization.
And since it seems that so many of these critics were too clouded with their frustrations to accurately pay attention to Stewart's material - anyone who thinks he made an equivalence between the awfulness of both candidates is objectively dumb - it's also worth pointing out among those who are so upset that Stewart dared to "attack" poor old Joe Biden, that, in fact, his criticism was less about Biden than it was about his handlers, and his communications team specifically. "Fire everyone!" And it isn't as if this is some kind of unique criticism either, as observers have been noting for well over a year that Biden's messaging team was doing a really piss-poor job of conveying Biden's achievements, his agenda, those challenges beyond his authority, and dissolving those true both-sidisms taken for granted in mainstream news media (the classified documents cases, charges of nepotism, handling of the border and foreign policy, etc). Anyone looking at the parallel sets of numbers between public approvals of Buden's handling of the economy and the actual economic numbers can clearly see the deficit of Biden's team's abilty to use these facts to shape this public perception. This was the basis of news stories early this year about Barack Obama personally voicing concerns over Biden's team's messaging, and we've even seen Jill Biden being concerned behind the scenes. So, in the past week, it's worth noting that when you have Biden's team declining the opportunity of a sit-down pre-Super Bowl interview, offering an audience of 100 million+ to lay out his case, but instead allowing Biden to do a impulsive and combative press conference which only managed to exacerbate perceptions of his mental fitness problems, and then capping it all off with what is, frankly, an embarrassing and patronizing debut on fucking TikTok, maybe that's some tone-deafness that's worth calling out. At this point, acting like "everything's fine" is not going to win any elections.
Of course, if we needed an epitome of petty shit-takes here, we can always rely on AV Club. who described the ratings surge of Jon Stewart's return as being due to "morbid curiosity", but acknowledging that audiences found the prospect "exciting, apparently". (Today's snark is apparently superior to "90s snark".) And begrudgingly, "to the surprise of many, Stewart didn’t miss a beat". More sarcastically, they note that Stewart was "so effective that he ended up putting off many voters" by not only making jokes about Biden but for "his complete lack of interest in fighting the perception that he’s too old to run for office again". Not as if that's his job or anything, but, again, this fails to miss the real critique that Stewart was making, which is that Joe Biden's own team (whose job it is) has not been showing much more interest, and certainly not capability, at fighting this perception either. But this is also due to the AV Club's presumption that Jon Stewart's role should be that of a party-line propogandist rather than a media satirist. Might I suggest that this blurred distinction is exactly why Trever Noah was not satisfying in this position, nor were any of the other Trump-era comedy pundits who eschewed media satire (because that would invoke "fake news" whataboutisms) in favor of party-line proselytizing, and also exactly why the hunger for the return of vintage Jon Stewart is so ravenous at this time in history. The antidote for the "Bullshit Mountain" of right-wing media is not a mirror-image Bullshit Mountain from left-wing media. And as Stewart's poignant finishing remarks to the above segment states very clearly, it is not Jon Stewart's job, or any other "hero", to "save Democracy", but it's each and every citizen's, "every day, forever". Stewart's job is to cut through the media narrative bullshit to help us navigate this everyday struggle.
Also a side note, but I noticed in a previous article, this same AV Club writer made an odd statement that "many speculated that Stewart lost that gig over Apple’s refusal to air a segment on China and A.I., which Stewart seemingly called out at the top of the show tonight. Stewart now says, '[Apple] didn’t want me to say things that might get me in trouble.'" So, just to make it official, the AV Club has zero literacy in humor. But they sure do love to sell Apple products!
Offline
The response towards Stewart's return by some of these political hacks who write on these sites you mention, is beyond depressing. I can think of very few thinkers and speakers, and not even specifically thinkers and speakers in comedy, but in any field, who are better than he is, specifically when it comes to illustrating the issues that we currently have at hand and how, maybe, they can begin to be course corrected. But the fact that these dolts just keep trotting out the same old shit in response to Stewart because he didn't reflexively say exactly what they think someone from 'their side' is supposed to say just makes me worry....who can say it better? If he can't do it, who can? What can break through this brain tartar of partisanship that has made everything absolutely impossible to properly talk about, if not Jon Stewart?
Now of course the answer to that, usually in even better times, is almost always never one person. And so I don't want to push all of our collective hope on one reluctant televison show host. But the fact that so many of the responses by left wing media sites to what he said, and how little they fucking comprehend of his bigger picture, is just.....desparing? Because at this point is their even any reason to waste the energy in being angry anymore? Maybe we should all just start slumping against walls and wait for our turn to decompose like any proper dead civilization.
Offline
crumbsroom wrote:
Now of course the answer to that, usually in even better times, is almost always never one person. And so I don't want to push all of our collective hope on one reluctant televison show host. But the fact that so many of the responses by left wing media sites to what he said, and how little they fucking comprehend of his bigger picture, is just.....desparing? Because at this point is their even any reason to waste the energy in being angry anymore? Maybe we should all just start slumping against walls and wait for our turn to decompose like any proper dead civilization.
This is why I wanted to highlight Stewart's closing remarks, and I'm disappointed that more reviews of the episode are not, because it needs to be stressed that the best way to extricate oneself from this goddamn cable news hamster wheel of anxiety and anticipation is to realize that there is no season finale here. They amp up these elections like they're the Super Bowl, as if the victory is a self-fullfilling goal, and ignoring that an election win actually marks the beginning of our responsibilities for change, not the end, as if your preferred candidate getting into office will automatically solve all the problems. And then, as an inevitable consequence, there's the disillusion of realizing that all of our problems didn't get solved and, hey, they might even be worse than we'd been led to believe, but that's when the real work is needed, not before the election. And all of these people talking about how this is all so exhausting. It's the cable new hamster wheel that's producing this exhaustion, through this false promise, through this constant daily stimulation of our outrage and anxiety, burning off this precious nervous energy on absolutely nothing productive. Stewart's reminder that these responsibilities exist "every day forever" should reorient us to be more constructive with our energy, and that there shouldn't be an expectation that there will be a time when we feel entitled to retire or rest from being good responsible citizens.
Offline
Thank god they did not shave in vain.
"Which Scott Story Should We Tell?"
(spoiler: the masturbation fire)
Offline
David Cross has recovered from the nadir of his "clapter" MAGA special from 2016 and veered back into putting actual jokes into his politics. There's still a few clapter moments here, but at least it's funny.
Offline
It looks official that Jon Stewart will not be ensuring the standards of quality for any of the Daily Show episodes that he will not be hosting. The gap of quality was less pronounced under hosts Jordan Klepper and Desi Lydic, but is tragically obvious with hosts Michael Kosta and Ronny Chieng. Chieng, in particular, is such a dipshit idiot. During his interview with Yuva Noah Harari, a thoughtful writer capable of expressing complex concepts with nuance, an irritated Chieng presses, "So is that a good thing or a bad thing?", basically becoming exactly what Stewart had ridiculed CNN hosts for back in 2013, so I'm skeptical that he signed off on that. (Comedy Central appears to have scrubbed this earlier 2013 clip off of their web archives, so I guess it's simply the new normal now.)
So even if this becomes more of a Weekly Show, sticking solely to Stewart's clips, It's still good to have him back, and the rest of the show, like the rest of the channel, can soak in the graveyard of Viacom cable TV.
Offline
I need to watch that Bruce and Kevin MacDonald thing at some point.
I have opinons on Colbert stuff, but I'm too tired to talk about it.
Saving this space to forget about later.
Offline
I had to watch John Cleese on Club Random. And he's not the crusty, crazy old man that he's been made out to be.
But the biggest laugh I had was, after watching about two hours of Maher talking about how much he loves Python, it becomes clear that Bill Maher doesn't actually know who Graham Chapman is. "Brian?"
Offline
This is a really good profile on Ol' Billy Freckles.