I know Stan Laurel was sad.
Undercutting my point before I even begin.
But he was different kind
of sad.
Stan Laurel was comedically
sad.
Using his feigned sadness to generate laughter.
Which is different from the sadness generated by certain comedians
today.
A sadness based on the utter hopelessness of human
existence.
Which I thought was the condition comedy was basically
trying to relieve.
Maybe times have just changed. To the point where comedy is simply reality
with a “You might as well laugh” tag on it.
With the tacit corollary, “Because what else are you going to do?”
I read an article about comedian Erica Rhodes. I read the whole thing – and it was quite long
– because I did comedy myself at one
time and I wanted to check out how things were going.
Near the end of the article, I encountered a line that struck
deep in my “What the heck is going on?” area.
Journalist Jeffrey Fleischman’s extended profile – which
gave off the sense that if he wrote it right, he might get her to go out with
him – capsulized Erica’s comedic approach, saying it treaded “the fine line
between despair and hilarity.”
I had no idea that’s what we were supposed to be shooting
for. Of course, my favorite film
comedies are The Court Jester, The Three
Amigos, and Pee Wee’s Big Adventure.
Where they unequivocally weren’t.
But as I said, maybe times have just changed.
Before commencing this effort, I checked a few clips of
Erica Rhodes performing in various comedy clubs, collected on YouTube.
The first thing I noticed is that Erica Rhodes has a distinctively high
voice. (She defuses that early,
saying, “This is my voice.”)
The problem I had with her voice was that, depending on the venue’s
amplification system, sometimes I could hear what she was saying and sometimes
I couldn’t. (Leaving me wondering whether she ever came
offstage after an inaudible “set”, thinking she bombed when it was really the
microphone.)
The other thing I noticed about Erica Rhodes is when she reached
for a curse word, she said, “Shoot!”
Which I found eminently endearing.
I have considered writing sympathetically about the substantial cohort
of people who must endure words and pictures that genuinely offend them and can
do nothing about that because “That’s just where we’re at, so get over it.” I am not sure which non-conservative would be
brave enough to explor that countercultural predicament. It is apparently not me.
Getting to her material, which, for her mother, seeing her
perform for the first time, was the one tiny little thing she had trouble with.
I generally liked it.
But I’m not her mother.
There is an audacious “darkness” to Erica’s material that
appeals to me, along with her ability to originally notice such things, and the courage to make that her act.
One example:
The now mid-thirties Erica asks if any people in the
audience are in their twenties, and when they boisterously acknowledge their
presence, she says, the twenties are a good time,
“… but I don’t relate
to it anymore, ‘cause I’m like, ‘You guys are so cute, because you still think
you matter. Like the rest of your life
is just this really long journey where you find out you matter less and less
and less every day, and then, you die.”
It is quite possible that one generation’s comedian is another
generation’s “someone you want to get away from at a party.” In one Erica Rhodes YouTube clip, she said the word “die” and the word “dead” in a span
of three minutes and twenty-four seconds.
No wonder I liked her.
Though my list of “film favorites” reveals a stylistic ambivalence. It could
be I like both. A balancing menu of
poison and pie.
I just think something is “off” in Erica’s relentless conceptualization.
I understand the idea of making others as miserable as you
are.
I’m just not sure that's comedy.
(Unless times have just changed.)
No comments:
Post a Comment