Today, on my wonderful DVR (how did I ever get along without one?) I watched the brand new episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher". There were some really funny moments, such as Bill's "new rule" about Pluto.
But while watching Maher's discussion with his "panel", I found myself questioning the very format of shows like "Real Time" and "The Daily Show", and their use of humor to skewer those in power (I would say "skewer the Republicans", but these shows will still exist after the GOP pendulum swings the other way).
Wait, that's not actually true. I think I was disturbed by my own enjoyment of the debate, because the "debate" was, at its root, an excuse to make jokes. However much Bill Maher may hate Lord Bush, however strongly he may feel about the issues at hand, the end result was always a joke. This became clear while listening to Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens, if you dont know, is an articulate, intelligent man who still somehow suffers under the dillusion that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. And he argued such, to which Maher's replies always led to a joke.
There is nothing wrong with jokes. Jonathan Swift and Kurt Vonnegut, among others (including Bill Maher), have used them to great effect. The problem is with the viewers for whom this is their only exposure to Political Debate and Thinking.
No, that's wrong, too. That is a problem, but so is crime, poverty, carbon dioxide emissions, no-bid government contracts and the existance of Paris Hilton as a cultural icon. And, as you see, I myself like things to lead up to a little joke. That doesnt make what I said any less true (personally, I think the popularity of Paris Hilton is indicative of a severe problem with the American psyche).
How about this, then: Hitchens would sit there, and give rational arguements for his (wrong) opinion. Maher would respond not quite as rationally, then finish with a crowd-pleasing line of some sort. Maybe what bothers me is that I'm not quite sure if the crowd actually gets the arguement, or if they just love the zingers. If it's all about the zingers, then would the crowd have cheered Hitchens had he made better jokes than Maher, rather than booing him? And does this imply that the Republican party could halt its backward slide simply by hiring better joke-writers?
I dont know, something about the scene bugged me. I'll think about it some more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't see anything wrong with cracking wise. I figure that as long as you are aware of it being a comedy show rather than a news show (although Stewart does let people talk without jokes from time to time), it's OK.
You're right about some people being too dense to know the difference, but then, they're probably too stupid to come out of the rain too, but I don't think you're suggesting we should hand out umbrellas to them.
Thin on it, but I don't think there's anything worng with it.
I agree, I dont think there's something wrong with the shows, but something bugged me. Last night I watched the new new show, and loved it, and had no issues then, so maybe I was just being stupid when I watched the first one.
Post a Comment