Another reason it's hard for modern comedians to attain the dizzying heights of glorious silliness reached by Late Night with Conan or its Letterman predecessor is because with the passage of time we remember the memorable bits and forget the rest. Those shows cranked out a ton of comedy five nights a week for years, and while we can credit the wild anarchic glee of its creators for the stuff that hit, we should also credit the sheer desperation of constant deadline pressure. And the show-biz rule, best exemplified by punk rock, that if "unpolished" is the best you can manage on the production schedule and budget you have, present it as a stylistic choice.
Stephen Colbert's in-character performance at the 2006 Correspondent's Dinner was a thing of beauty, because it was at a time and place where it felt like comedians were the only people who could get away with criticizing the Bush administration. It was a brave move and a logical extension of Colbert's clueless conservative persona. But after it got a great response, subsequent attempts to capitalize on the "court jester who is the only one allowed to speak truth to power" persona didn't feel so risky anymore.
Eventually the schtick ossified into the rote clapter-farming affair it is today.
I saw you created the hereswhyyousuck@gmail.com email address so that we can tell you why you suck. But I thought "won't need that; he's one of my favorite columnists". Then you shat on Oppenheimer. Expect an email.
You may have written about this elsewhere, my apologies if so (or if i missed it here). But isn't a possibly bigger problem that the public won't allow it? When Conan had Triumph or Pimpbot or whatever on in 1995 during, say, the Kosovo crisis, he didn't have to deal with tens of thousands tweeting at him "How can you laugh about a masturbating bear WHEN THERES A GENOCIDE GOING ON!!!!????"
I sort of suspect that apolitical comedy would be perceived as a political act in and of itself, probably a right wing political act, by a loud (if possibly not demographically large) section of the media and public. Do you disagree? How should one deal with that both personally and professionally? Or do you think there is a large enough, sorry for the term, silent majority who would make their happiness with the lack of politics known and drown out the politically oriented criticism?
Conan (in his personal life an unabashed liberal) has said on his podcast that he purposely avoided political comedy because he wanted to make funny that lasted once the topicality was gone. And while I can't remember any jokes about Denny Hastert that really landed in 2004, I will never stop laughing at Conan Plays Old Times Baseball, also from 2004.
I feel like NBC could ride this massive wave of Conan nostalgia and "Hot Ones" mega-virality into just giving him the Tonight Show back. Fallon's had it 17 years and ratings are at an all-time low — especially in the youth demo; somehow Greg Gutfeld on Fox is murdering the late night shows in the youth demo. A ton of press could be whipped up on "Conan's triumphant return" to the job he was screwed out of 20+ years ago now. Maybe make late night TV funny (and watchable!) again.
But they won't. Why does it feel like all of the hosts of the late night shows are the final hosts of those shows, and that the form — a form I love (or used to love) — may be on the way out?
I think something missing from your analysis is the demand-side of the equation. Ie, does the public *want* non political stuff? You take it as a given, but I'd have my doubts, given that an "easy" thing to provide (news) has been relentlessly turned into punditry (and note this has happened to an even greater, not lesser, degree in media subject to market forces, eg Fox and MSNBC vs AP).
The second, and imo more important, question, is whether the public is willing to accept some things as non-political. Ie, to take off their political glasses for one sec and appreciate comedy on its own terms rather than shoehorning it in whatever political beef they are now very, very involved about.
As an example, let's take Tom Leher. Some of his songs are clearly political, eg "send the marines" or "who's next". As an aside, we might notice how these songs did not produce nearly the amount of pushback they would generate now, let alone during the Bush years. A counterfactual Leher living in the 00s might have found himself repudiated by the right, Dixie Girls-style, and who knows how being involuntarily consigned to the leftist sphere would hace affected the rest of his work?
Secondly, notice how easy it would be to our sensibilities (or lack thereof) to make even the non-political songs political. "Smut"? A pervert, who ignores the suffering of young men due to porn addiction and chirps facile irony about one of the greatest evils corroding American manhood! "It Makes a Fellow Proud to Be a Soldier"? Disrespecting the troops, again! "Be prepared"? Sullying one of the most wholesome American institutions, the Boy Scouts, with its lurid thoughts he could not keep to himself (fairly sure "groomer" would be typed a lot). But let's not forget the left, the current heavyweights of outrage culture. "In Old Mexico"? Racist, classists, imperialist, he needs to learn and listen until he understands the gravity of his intersectional offenses. I can easily see one Salon article or two.
We want politics. We want politics so badly we desperately and incongrously force everything in the world to be political. How can anything *not* be political then?
I used to do cue cards for Conan. He wasn't my favorite person to work for, but I never let that get in the way of how damn funny he is. I'll basically watch anything he does because he can make anything funny.
Though I'm a similar age to Jeff, I didnt really become a fan until I worked for him in 2003. Before that it was just sort of on in the background while I tried to convince my college girlfriend to fool around.
Assuming arguendo that's true, how do we know it's effective? Dubya still isn't in prison, Trump has a good chance of being reelected, even Colbert--the Dems were headed for a landslide in 2006. Hell, have you met anyone who even changed his or her mind as a result of a comedy sketch?
So if getting even doesn't work, we're left with directionless anger, which is the most counterproductive emotion imaginable.
Another reason it's hard for modern comedians to attain the dizzying heights of glorious silliness reached by Late Night with Conan or its Letterman predecessor is because with the passage of time we remember the memorable bits and forget the rest. Those shows cranked out a ton of comedy five nights a week for years, and while we can credit the wild anarchic glee of its creators for the stuff that hit, we should also credit the sheer desperation of constant deadline pressure. And the show-biz rule, best exemplified by punk rock, that if "unpolished" is the best you can manage on the production schedule and budget you have, present it as a stylistic choice.
Stephen Colbert's in-character performance at the 2006 Correspondent's Dinner was a thing of beauty, because it was at a time and place where it felt like comedians were the only people who could get away with criticizing the Bush administration. It was a brave move and a logical extension of Colbert's clueless conservative persona. But after it got a great response, subsequent attempts to capitalize on the "court jester who is the only one allowed to speak truth to power" persona didn't feel so risky anymore.
Eventually the schtick ossified into the rote clapter-farming affair it is today.
Craig Ferguson left the “silly and fun” lane wide open and it’s been empty ever since.
Man, Craig Ferguson was the best. No one since has had the courage to even *consider* a gay robot skeleton cohost!
More Pazzi Conspiracy content, please.
I saw you created the hereswhyyousuck@gmail.com email address so that we can tell you why you suck. But I thought "won't need that; he's one of my favorite columnists". Then you shat on Oppenheimer. Expect an email.
I generally agree. I do have one question:
You may have written about this elsewhere, my apologies if so (or if i missed it here). But isn't a possibly bigger problem that the public won't allow it? When Conan had Triumph or Pimpbot or whatever on in 1995 during, say, the Kosovo crisis, he didn't have to deal with tens of thousands tweeting at him "How can you laugh about a masturbating bear WHEN THERES A GENOCIDE GOING ON!!!!????"
I sort of suspect that apolitical comedy would be perceived as a political act in and of itself, probably a right wing political act, by a loud (if possibly not demographically large) section of the media and public. Do you disagree? How should one deal with that both personally and professionally? Or do you think there is a large enough, sorry for the term, silent majority who would make their happiness with the lack of politics known and drown out the politically oriented criticism?
I recall Jimmy Fallon getting some level of heat for this back in 2016.
Conan (in his personal life an unabashed liberal) has said on his podcast that he purposely avoided political comedy because he wanted to make funny that lasted once the topicality was gone. And while I can't remember any jokes about Denny Hastert that really landed in 2004, I will never stop laughing at Conan Plays Old Times Baseball, also from 2004.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS39vMhag-A
Great piece.
I feel like NBC could ride this massive wave of Conan nostalgia and "Hot Ones" mega-virality into just giving him the Tonight Show back. Fallon's had it 17 years and ratings are at an all-time low — especially in the youth demo; somehow Greg Gutfeld on Fox is murdering the late night shows in the youth demo. A ton of press could be whipped up on "Conan's triumphant return" to the job he was screwed out of 20+ years ago now. Maybe make late night TV funny (and watchable!) again.
But they won't. Why does it feel like all of the hosts of the late night shows are the final hosts of those shows, and that the form — a form I love (or used to love) — may be on the way out?
> I guess the giggle trout weren’t bitin’ at the ol’ joke pond today.
That actually is a good take on the "witty old geezer's description of somebody's petty misfortune"!
This is what I come here for.
I agree with you on Oppenheimer, I'da walked out if wasn't at 35,000 feet over the Atlantic ocean.
Oh man if you had that’d have been the most hardcore movie snub ever
I think something missing from your analysis is the demand-side of the equation. Ie, does the public *want* non political stuff? You take it as a given, but I'd have my doubts, given that an "easy" thing to provide (news) has been relentlessly turned into punditry (and note this has happened to an even greater, not lesser, degree in media subject to market forces, eg Fox and MSNBC vs AP).
The second, and imo more important, question, is whether the public is willing to accept some things as non-political. Ie, to take off their political glasses for one sec and appreciate comedy on its own terms rather than shoehorning it in whatever political beef they are now very, very involved about.
As an example, let's take Tom Leher. Some of his songs are clearly political, eg "send the marines" or "who's next". As an aside, we might notice how these songs did not produce nearly the amount of pushback they would generate now, let alone during the Bush years. A counterfactual Leher living in the 00s might have found himself repudiated by the right, Dixie Girls-style, and who knows how being involuntarily consigned to the leftist sphere would hace affected the rest of his work?
Secondly, notice how easy it would be to our sensibilities (or lack thereof) to make even the non-political songs political. "Smut"? A pervert, who ignores the suffering of young men due to porn addiction and chirps facile irony about one of the greatest evils corroding American manhood! "It Makes a Fellow Proud to Be a Soldier"? Disrespecting the troops, again! "Be prepared"? Sullying one of the most wholesome American institutions, the Boy Scouts, with its lurid thoughts he could not keep to himself (fairly sure "groomer" would be typed a lot). But let's not forget the left, the current heavyweights of outrage culture. "In Old Mexico"? Racist, classists, imperialist, he needs to learn and listen until he understands the gravity of his intersectional offenses. I can easily see one Salon article or two.
We want politics. We want politics so badly we desperately and incongrously force everything in the world to be political. How can anything *not* be political then?
Fantastic piece.
I used to do cue cards for Conan. He wasn't my favorite person to work for, but I never let that get in the way of how damn funny he is. I'll basically watch anything he does because he can make anything funny.
Though I'm a similar age to Jeff, I didnt really become a fan until I worked for him in 2003. Before that it was just sort of on in the background while I tried to convince my college girlfriend to fool around.
You are absolutely right.
Oppenheimer wasn't good.
Comedy is also about anger and getting even.
Assuming arguendo that's true, how do we know it's effective? Dubya still isn't in prison, Trump has a good chance of being reelected, even Colbert--the Dems were headed for a landslide in 2006. Hell, have you met anyone who even changed his or her mind as a result of a comedy sketch?
So if getting even doesn't work, we're left with directionless anger, which is the most counterproductive emotion imaginable.
> Low-sodium soup is a perverted farse
"farce"?