On Monday, the class was “privileged” to an obviously older (though, not sure if he be wiser) George Carlin. Having only scanned some of this week’s various posts, there seems to be a consensus that most were not all too impressed with his routine from Life is Worth Losing. Although, at present, this is as far as my observation can go. (Because I wanted to come to my own conclusions before looking at those of others, I refrained from reading further into any of the specific reasons behind the general unpopularity.) Still, this does not prevent me from venturing to surmise that despite what can be said of the piece’s later material, the opening was rather well liked (and even if one did not like it, they certainly have to respect the astuteness and wit which went into composing, memorizing, and delivering such an amusingly rhythmic word-game). All this leads to the inevitable question I intend to explore in the following passages, namely, why was Carlin’s later critique of American culture (and the consumerism of it in particular) not as well received as his opening?
The main reason why people were not dying from laughter at Carlin’s later material was that it was not delivered in a comedic manner. Somewhere between the opening and the actual piece, the usual disconnect which exists between the comedian, the material, and his persona, disappears, leaving the audience with only an old, bitter man standing in front of his gravestone, ranting about everything he finds contemptible. Moreover, the biting sarcasm with which he harps on malls, pointless purchasing, and the excessive size of products, he says earnestly, causing everything to become very real in the person of George Carlin, an air of seriousness replacing what should have been one of humor. This directly contrasts his opening remarks which consist entirely of ridiculous buzzwords strung together into coherent, but not congruous, statements. Like the later piece, the message of this one was also about some of the less warranted aspects of consumerism, yet the atmosphere was unmistakably different (and definitely not threatening). Though both convey in many ways the same message, the tone makes clear why an audience may be more receptive to one and not the other.
Also hurting his cause was Carlin’s deliberate separation of himself from the audience (and thus, those he is ridiculing). Granted, he prefaces his rant with the assertion that he loves America, but the sarcasm of the next statement cancels out any chance of building some audience rapport. From here, he moves into nothing but plain attacks on American culture. I say attacks, because he makes no effort to mention any of his own faults, or include himself in the group he criticizes. By not doing this, he becomes the elevated outsider, looking down on the rest, mocking what he sees to be their faults, not his. His stage turns into a soapbox, and he becomes the self-decided, better person preaching to the wretched masses. Of course, this is a poor relationship to have with those who ultimately determine the success of your material.
So far in the course, this work of Carlin’s is the first time I can think of where the comedian has not in some way tried to establish a connection between himself and his audience (whether it be recognition of his faults/shared humanity, claiming membership to the group being mocked, or even acknowledging that he is an outsider of that group/other groups). Obviously, failure to do this results in a rather unfavorable reaction from the viewership, leaving people “rubbed the wrong way,” because they feel they are not witnessing comedy, but instead, are victims of a cruel joke.
Carlin, George. “Life is Worth Losing.” http://video.google.com. 27 August 2006. Google Video. 18 February 2009. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-706867....
No comments:
Post a Comment