I've explained before, but I've never been a fan of stand up comedy of the modern era. I don't mind Seinfeld, as most of what he does is not intensely about himself. But comedians who base their shtick on a sort of public self analysis - that's never held much appeal. Or put it this way - I can enjoy some of that from some comedians in small doses. For example, I've recently watched parts of Netflix specials by 3 female comedians I quite like: Kitty Flanergan, Judith Lucy and Chelsea Peretti (the awful Gina in Brooklyn Nine Nine - I didn't know she was a stand up comic as well as an actor until this special) All of them do a very similar style of self deprecation, with a fair amount of content about how awful a lot of their boyfriends or dates have been. I find I can take it for a while - maybe 45 minutes, before I start losing interest. And it's not because I think their jokes about men are bad. Kitty Flanergan, in particular, is about as cheery as you can expect a female comedian to be. And although she makes jokes about men, she's pretty even handed with her attitude towards women too.
Part of it is that I don't like the crudeness and language of much modern stand up, but even if I come across one with pretty clean language, I still usually can't help but feel a bit bored with the style.
Anyway, why am I talking about this? It's because of the international praise being heaped upon Hannah Gadsby's "Nanette" on Netflix. I started watching it, but apparently I stopped before it became more serious. I had a fair idea where it was going, but still, in fairness I should go back to finish it.
My reaction to the first 30 minutes or so that I did watch: I thought it was interesting that she, as a high profile lesbian, was complaining about the pressure other lesbians' identity politics has put upon her. (She says at one point that it's not like she spends much of each day doing things that are specifically lesbian. But having started with a lot of lesbian content early on, she had the problem of being accused of not being lesbian enough in her later shows.) I thought this was a refreshing thing to hear from a LGBT comic.
But the rest of the material - she makes the point early on that she is going to be giving up comedy because of the self deprecation involved, which she realised wasn't healthy. Again, I think this is pretty refreshing. But...I still have a bit of a sympathy problem for her taking 10 years to realise this.
Actually, in the Chelsea Peretti special I watched most of, she does some weird cut away stuff that seems to be about the same point - that's she's aware that the nature of this style of comedy is not great for self esteem. So it's not as if Gadsby is the first to realise it.
I have to admit, I have never found Gadsby's comic persona, such as on that Adam Hills' show, very likeable. I don't understand the popularity she has in certain circles. And yes, I guess while watching her I am often trying to self analyse why I don't like her, wondering how much of it is a reaction to her lesbianism. (I have to admit, I find difficulty feeling empathy with butch lesbianism at the best of times.) But I think there is more to it than that. I think maybe I have always had a bit of sense that she was too sensitive (or smart?) to be doing comedy.
Anyway, I guess I have to go watch the last part of it, but I have my doubts I am going to find it life changing as some people claim.
And besides, I just don't like stand up...
8 comments:
this Malaysian stand up comedian is actually surprisingly good. I never expected Malaysia to produce a good comedian but he actually is https://www.netflix.com/au/title/80195429
mislink https://www.netflix.com/au/title/80195429
and I think you would like it because it isn't introspective stand up comedy (mostly though he does make fun of himself)
Thanks for that. I will watch.
I suspect I may like a Bill Bailey show too - I think he always seems a very well adjusted, happy guy in real life, so any introspection is not going to be of the "working out in public their troubles" type.
'Too sensitive'? Ha, collectively, the stand-up comedian demographic has to be the most manic-depressive bunch on the planet.
But yep. Stand up is a very limited medium.
I'm not entirely sure when it became common for stand up comedy to be one long session, too. I mean, I have the impression (from watching Seinfeld talking to older comedians, for example) that a lot of (say) pre-1970's work for them would be doing a 15 to 20 minute bit before a music act in a nightclub, followed by another bit between acts?
Perhaps it's the sheer length of one man/woman shows on an empty stage talking for 80 - 90 minutes without a break that wears me down.
That said, I still have never had the urge to go to a comedy club that features a series of comedians doing (say) 15 to 20 min each. And the TV shows that do that (what's the British one, I forget) I can't really be bothered with either.
On the matter of coarse language - I don't know why it is that, if I avoid people who swear profusely in everyday life because I find it tedious and unnecessary (and I can't be alone in that), I'm not supposed to have the same reaction to it in a stand up comic doing a show?
And why is it necessary at all?? It is extremely common that I can find a comedian who I find funny on TV with very little swearing (say, Will Anderson on Gruen) completely puts me off when in a stand up show it suddenly becomes full of swearing.
Yes, I'm pretty sure the foundation of modern comedy was the vaudeville act and variety show routine. Which is typically quite short, anything from one minute to ten minutes. Now that is a format I feel I could love; there's always something different and new, and the good balances out the bad (there's a reason I can sit through all that pub poetry!)
The one hour dramatic monologue is something mainstream theatre can do well. Maybe stand up got the idea from that.
There you go. We've solved modern comedy. Except - it seems a lot of people do like live stand up comedy in its modern format.
Post a Comment