First, comedy is an art form. Essentially, like other art forms, you are touching someone emotionally ... in this case, the "funny bone" trigger. And there are so many types of "funny." There's the laugh-out-loud funny, the bemused funny, the thought-provoking cleverness form, the offensive ("I shouldn't be laughing, but ..." form), etc. Where does, say, Jonathan Swift lie in this taxonomy? The Marx Brothers? Lucille Ball? Bill Hicks? Bill Burr?
2. Linguistic economy. There's gold in this lesson to the comic. In fact, this is something writers of all forms should strive towards. Economy, or "cutting the fat" begets clarity, and clarity is paramount in any kind of communication.
3. Critical thinking ... both on the part of the performer and the audience. Your timing is an essential element in the process. You have a clever twist on a topic, but the distance between your timing and allowing the audience to catch on or catch up is crucial, I'm sure. That moment of silence between your line and the audience response I suppose is the difference between killing and bombing.
4. Failure. Everyone needs to fail before achieving success regardless of what they do.
5. An aside. Can you provide your definition of "fearless?" Because I find a lot of nobility in the comic's courage to take on dangerous topics. To that end, I always admired Patrice O'Neal (R.I.P.)
Thanks Jim. Here are some points in respond to yours:
1. Yes, and each act has to do their own funny, which may mix up one or two types. You can't cover it all. One thing I would say is that even the most rarefied and intellectual act needs some more accessible material - even Bill Hicks put his friendlier stuff at the start of sets. Ease people in.
2. Sure, but linguistic excess is part of that too, knowing when 'more is more'. Shakespeare's humour, such as it is, is all tied up in his verbosity.
3. Sure, timing is everything. You also generally need to enunciate words clearly and precisely, or at least the ones that count.
4. Sure, but in comedy the failure is very quantifiable: They haven't laughed. Of course, the not laughing may be a step on the way to them eventually doing so, but it's measurable in a way other artistic pursuits art. Even terrible poets play to respectful silence.
5. 'Fearless' in a comedian is small beer to me. Woody Allen said something about how he felt all show business risks were intrinsically small beer. What you can ask from comedians is to tell the truth as they see it - which Patrice O'Neal certainly did. Of course, in authoritarian regimes, the stakes for comedians become much higher, when speaking truth to power really does come at a cost. To a certain degree satire is always low stakes in a country where they, thank goodness, don't lock you up for it.
A lot to digest here, James.
First, comedy is an art form. Essentially, like other art forms, you are touching someone emotionally ... in this case, the "funny bone" trigger. And there are so many types of "funny." There's the laugh-out-loud funny, the bemused funny, the thought-provoking cleverness form, the offensive ("I shouldn't be laughing, but ..." form), etc. Where does, say, Jonathan Swift lie in this taxonomy? The Marx Brothers? Lucille Ball? Bill Hicks? Bill Burr?
2. Linguistic economy. There's gold in this lesson to the comic. In fact, this is something writers of all forms should strive towards. Economy, or "cutting the fat" begets clarity, and clarity is paramount in any kind of communication.
3. Critical thinking ... both on the part of the performer and the audience. Your timing is an essential element in the process. You have a clever twist on a topic, but the distance between your timing and allowing the audience to catch on or catch up is crucial, I'm sure. That moment of silence between your line and the audience response I suppose is the difference between killing and bombing.
4. Failure. Everyone needs to fail before achieving success regardless of what they do.
5. An aside. Can you provide your definition of "fearless?" Because I find a lot of nobility in the comic's courage to take on dangerous topics. To that end, I always admired Patrice O'Neal (R.I.P.)
-- Jim
Thanks Jim. Here are some points in respond to yours:
1. Yes, and each act has to do their own funny, which may mix up one or two types. You can't cover it all. One thing I would say is that even the most rarefied and intellectual act needs some more accessible material - even Bill Hicks put his friendlier stuff at the start of sets. Ease people in.
2. Sure, but linguistic excess is part of that too, knowing when 'more is more'. Shakespeare's humour, such as it is, is all tied up in his verbosity.
3. Sure, timing is everything. You also generally need to enunciate words clearly and precisely, or at least the ones that count.
4. Sure, but in comedy the failure is very quantifiable: They haven't laughed. Of course, the not laughing may be a step on the way to them eventually doing so, but it's measurable in a way other artistic pursuits art. Even terrible poets play to respectful silence.
5. 'Fearless' in a comedian is small beer to me. Woody Allen said something about how he felt all show business risks were intrinsically small beer. What you can ask from comedians is to tell the truth as they see it - which Patrice O'Neal certainly did. Of course, in authoritarian regimes, the stakes for comedians become much higher, when speaking truth to power really does come at a cost. To a certain degree satire is always low stakes in a country where they, thank goodness, don't lock you up for it.