"This Modern Thought Can Get the Best of You..."

As much as I love Modernism I must admit it has its share of radical supporters whose ideas don't always make a lot of sense (I'm looking at you, Robbe-Grillet). The goals of Modern literature, simplistically speaking, were to completely disregard the previous literary traditions and begin everything anew. The old modes of writing were considered insufficient in their ability to describe the new, highly fractured world view that came into prominence following World War I.

One major proponent of Modernist ideologies was author and critic (although he denounced the title) Alain Robbe-Grillet who, in 1963, published a compilation of essays about fiction writing titled, For A New Novel. In it Robbe-Grillet compares the literary traditions of yore to tree branches and that, "...the branch in question is actually dead of natural causes, by the simple action of time...and if all those who cling to it so desperately would glance up just once toward the top of the tree, they would discover that new, green, vigorous, hearty branches have grown out long since" ( p. 26).

He goes on later in the book to say that he is not proposing Modernism as the new, permanent style. It too will pass and something will take its place. Literature should always be alive and vital and change along with the needs of the writer. In Robbe-Grillet's mind, the writers of the period no longer needed many of the literary conventions such as linear narratives, omniscient narrators, and metaphor. And this is where I feel Robbe-Grillet went a little too far with his proposal. He confused popularity of convention with usefulness. Just because a mode of writing has fallen out of fashion it doesn't mean it's not useful.

Every writing technique is there to serve a purpose. Metaphor, for example, compares two objects in order to cast one of those objects in a new light. In Dave Eggers' short story, "On Wanting to Have Three Walls Up Before She Gets Home" he says, "...the air is gray and dense and the snow falls like ash." Eggers' description of snow forces the reader to question their preconceived notions about each object and how, according to his suggestion, they might actually be more similar than originally thought. Robbe-Grillet, on the other hand, wants to get rid of metaphor completely, arguing that its use devalues the intent of the initial word. In the case of Eggers' story, he is not allowing snow to be described as it is, but instead, relies on another image (ash) to get his point across. As I stated earlier, in creating a metaphor, the author forces the reader to reassess their notions of both objects and come to a conclusion about them. If anything, the comparison invites further thought on the meaning of each word and doesn't devalue them at all.

Along with metaphor, story structure, or at least linear story structure, was also brought into question during the reign of Modernsim. Linear story structure plots a straight line from one point in time to another. A story takes place at noon and ends at five in the afternoon. Non-linear storylines jump around in time and lack structure. The plot meanders wherever it may and lacks cohesion; the events of the story may seem unrelated and arbitrary. The point of this technique is to reflect the often random nature of life and the banality of human existence. While I don't have a problem with this form of writing, I think it's unwise to completely dismiss traditional story structure as archaic. Many of the best works of literature are well-plotted and completely dependant upon that plot to work.

Playwright, Theresa Rebeck, knows all to well how much structure has fallen out of favor with the literary community. In an L.A. Times interview she says,

Last year I attended a cocktail party for a theater that was doing one of my plays. The artistic director was making a little presentation, introducing me to his staff and his board, and he said -- in front of everybody -- "Theresa's plays are always really well-structured, but don't hold that against her."

The next day I wrote him an e-mail. "Hey, is it somehow considered uncool to structure a play these days?" I asked.

"Actually," he wrote back, "my literary department kind of does think that."

She defends the rotten branches of literature Robbe-Grillet was so eager to trim by saying, "Structure is not our enemy, it is the form that makes content possible; it is the meaning that holds the image and imbues it with specificity; specificity is not our enemy; intellect without heart is not more, it is less and in the theater sometimes less is just less. Contemporary playwrights don't need to toss away all that has come before us, nor could we if we even tried."

The last line of her quote echoes an oft-repeated line in Paul Thomas Anderson's movie Magnolia which says, "We may be through with the past, but the past is not through with us." Literature is not written in a vacuum. It is a product of a person's imagination, a person who, whether they like it or not, is influenced by the world around them. The changes Modernists so desperately wanted to make were in response to what had come before; the Victorian and Romantic Periods. In order for new branches to grow, there have to be roots somewhere. Nothing is created out of thin air. Structure, like metaphor, and omniscient narrators, may be part of an older tradition, but they are no less important than the new, Modernist tradition, incidentally, is pushing 100 years old. Looks like some one's outlived their usefulness ( I'm looking at you, Modernism).

Serious Comedy

One day I caught an episode of "Inside the Actor's Studio" with Mike Meyers and watched him talk about his theory of comedy and that the division of comedy into highbrow and lowbrow shouldn't exist. Comedy shouldn't be measured by its intellect, but its ability to get laughs. If a joke makes someone laugh, it's funny. Not everyone laughs at the same things, of course, but the idea behind his claim was that if a poop joke and a Tolstoy reference both get laughs, why should one be considered a better joke than the other? The two jokes merely have different means to achieving the same ends.

Well, his whole theory blew my mind because I had always been a bit of a comedy snob, especially when it came to movies. I'd take Wes Anderson over Adam Sandler. I like both, but thought there was something more complex and subtle to the jokes in Wes Anderson movies than that of the rather broad comedy of Adam Sandler. And maybe there is more subtlety to Wes Anderson movies, maybe even a bit of snobbishness, but does that mean the jokes are better/funnier? If a joke can get a laugh, who cares how it's done?

Some will argue that the complexity does matter and that, in Sandler's case, it doesn't take much talent to consistently play an angry man-child that makes funny voices. People say that just because something is yelled, it doesn't make it funny (a complaint often lodged against Will Ferrell). Well, all this started swirling, and continues to swirl in my head, and I had to really sit down and figure it out. Does yelling sometimes make things funny? My answer is yes. I wanted to show a scene from Old School where Will Ferrell keeps yelling, "We've gotta keep our composure, we've come too far!" Unfortunately, that clip seems to have been taken down from YouTube. Instead, I will submit a scene from "Wedding Crashers" where Will Ferrell keeps yelling for some meatloaf. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about.



The key phrase in the scene is, Ma! The meatloaf!" which gets repeated several times. And so, the issue morphs from being just about high and low brow comedy, but about what makes jokes/things funny. And, as any comic will tell you, it isn't only the joke that matters, but the delivery of the joke. On paper, a man yelling, "Ma! Can we get some meatloaf?" might not be read as being all that funny. But, when delivered in the right way, which I think Will Ferrell did, the line brings laughs.

Bringing it back to Sandler...He is the guy who can make strange voices and get laughs from it. Is it sophomoric humor based on simple premises? I don't think such labels are necessary or even fair. Again, the way comedy should be judged is by the laughs it gets. It doesn't matter how they are achieved. Those who say that because Sandler's comedy is so simple and stupid, that it can't be funny are being too serious about comedy, and are censoring themselves. They do not want to admit that they like something society considers simplistic. Mike Meyers, on "Inside the Actors' Studio", explains his views about the lack of judgement one should have while attempting and enjoying comedy.




As was stated earlier, jokes often live or die by their delivery. So often we find ourselves listening to a story someone claims is hilarious. "Wait, wait...You gotta hear this. It's hilarious..." The person gets through the story, starts busting up, and we, the listeners, are left completely in the dark about what was so funny about the story. The storyteller inevitably says, "I guess you had to have been there." That is a prime example of how important delivery is to a joke. When the storyteller is unable to duplicate the tone, cadence, and/or rhythm of a conversation closely enough, his/her audience does not share the same enthusiasm for the event. Or, perhaps you've found yourself re-tlling a joke you've heard and people don't laugh and you say, "Well, the comedian did it better" or, "He was funnier." Why, with the exact same joke, did one telling of it induce laughter and the other not? Delivery.

One comedian who gets derided a lot for being all energetic delivery and no material is Dane Cook. In 2006, AP ran an articled titled, "Is Dane Cook Actually Funny?" The article criticizes Cook for being a man of sounds rather than jokes.

Cook does possess a superior talent for sound effects, which greatly enhance his observations and storytelling. He can deftly impersonate the machine guns in the film “Heat,” the creaking sound of a secret passageway opening or the tumble of laundry in the dryer. In one routine, he gives lyrics to a car alarm.

It's true, Dane Cook does add a lot of sound effects in his stand-up. It is also part of what makes him funny to people. To his detractors, it may be the only reason he's funny. He isn't a comedian, but a wacky inflatable arm flailing tube man who also does a lot of noises. What is wrong with funny noises? If the noises garner laughs, if his delivery and timing are sharp enough that he can illicit a positive response from the audience, there should not be a problem. But, there is. Comedians like Cook are being judged on their material alone and not their delivery, which is a big part of what makes jokes work. Lack of material does not necessarily equal lack of quality, even though that seems to be the de rigeur opinion of critics everywhere.



The Los Angeles Times also featured an article about Cook and how he represents a general dumbing down of stand-up. Columnist Paul Brownfield said of Cook,

He's Seacrest-psyched, boy voted most likely. Cutest. Funniest. Coolest. For Cook, this is no ironic pose a la Andy Kaufman; it's a whole insufferable ethos, integral to the rise of his career. He's become huge by asserting that the comic mind does not come from alienation and restlessness but from adoration and social connection -- the comic as your instant-messaging best pal.

The article goes on to say that Cook's BFF persona is in direct contrast to the comics who have come before him, the ones whose personal strife became the source for their comedy (Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, Mitch Hedberg, etc.). "Comedy has traditionally sprung up as a reaction against oppression, internal and external -- from the pogrom to the contemporary neurosis. Cook's view flies in the face of what we know, generally, about every significant stand-up voice from Milton Berle on forward." Brownstein argues against Cook and says that his vacuous and superficial personality does not make for intelligent comedy. The wit and insight that used to come from comics like George Carlin is gone and has been replaced by Cook and jokes that revolve shitting on coats.



It's hard to argue against Brownstein's claim, especially after watching clips of Cook. He talks about ordering at Burger King, shitting on coats, watching a man get hit by a car. The material does not lend itself well to intellectual discussion. If a comedian lacks material or their material doesn't,"... [spring] up as a reaction against oppression..." does that make it any less funny? My answer to that is no. It is true, comedy has traditionally been a reaction to oppression. But, that doesn't mean it's sole purpose is to comment on the nature of man. As Mike Meyers proposes, comedy can be, and should be, allowed to be silly. Comedy that starts to take itself too seriously is not comedy. Comedy, like any other art form, changes form and purpose over time. Meyers' comedic sense seems to be derived from Surrealist and Dadaist theory, whose emphases were on freeing the unconscious mind and reevaluating the traditional labels given to art.

While Dane Cook and Adam Sandler don't have to be hailed as geniuses of comedy, it's unfair to label them as poster boys for the destruction of smart comedy. Comedy doesn't necessarily have to be smart. Comedy is meant to make people laugh. It can perform a secondary function as social commentator, but its success or importance shouldn't be measured based solely by that criteria, which is what's happening currently. As Robert Plant once said, "Does anyone remember laughter?"

P.S.

A History of Stand-Up Comedy according to About.com

A "MadTV" sketch mocking Dane Cook