balls of fucking steel, man (if you ask me)

[thehefner]

Stephen Colbert's White House Correspondents Dinner Speech, in its entireity.

Based on the blog articles and the few published ones out there, there's definitely a lot of controversy out there. Many are hailing him as a brilliant, scathing satarist, someone who finally had the guts to say what needed to be said in an atmosphere where such truths often go unspoken. Many others as dismissing him as an unfunny b-list comedian who lamely skewered just the right wing, proving himself to be another petty liberal "comedian" who ultimately doesn't matter much.

Many say he was unbelievably brave to do this. Others say it's not bravery if he's not in any real danger of his life or job or welfare; for everyone who hailed Stephen for "speaking truth to power," there're those who point out that it's nothing in comparison to, say, someone speaking truth to Saddam at the height of his power, where there'd be actual and very real physical danger. They say Stephen's not going to lose his job over this, and besides, Bush's ratings are at an all-time low, so the really brave thing would have been if he had said these things at the height of his popularity.

If you want my opinion, from a pure comedic performer standpoint, you have to consider that Stephen was up there for about twenty minutes, performing vicious satire right in front of his targets' *themselves*, receiving little more than titters and many, many uncomfortable silences, and not *once* (well, except for that one flub) breaking character or letting up. I'm sorry, I don't care how little "danger" he's really in personally or professionally, doing that took, as Stephen himself might put it, "muchos huevos grandes."

(Note: I find it bitterly interesting how the major news outlets, cnn.com, msnbc.com, etc, have all downplayed Stephen's performance, reducing it to little more than a footnote next to the much safer, soft-ball Presidential look-alike sketch. By pretending not to acknoweldge all the things Colbert said, particularly about the press themselves, is he not, in effect, kinda proving himself right about them?)

In any case, I retract what I said earlier about Colbert bombing. I mean, if his goal was just to make people laugh, then yeah, he bombed totally. But what he did and what he was going for, those jokes were not exactly "for" the people at that dinner. And for what I believed he sought out to do, I think Stephen's performance came off brilliantly. And while others disagree (and make good arguments, in all honesty), I honestly think it took huge fucking balls to do that.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[themadhatter26.livejournal.com]

I agree. As a performer, we all know what it's like to be up in front of a crowd of people who aren't responding, and when you can actually see the person RIGHT THERE it makes it all the worse. Let's face it, Stephen Colbert is the new epitome of balls.

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

Mixed feelings. Yes, I can totally imagine what it would have been like to be in his shoes right then, and yes, he retained his composure throughout, and so, yes, he has balls. Except for that flub.

But not huge ones. In order to have huge ones, he would have had to either rescued the routine into one that made everyone laugh at the end, feel entertained, and ready to deal with any biting points he made, or he would have had to deliver the satire in more serious tone from the start.

To me, the purpose of satire is to push people out of their rut. A physicist might see satire as that extra bit of energy required to push something out of one energy state and into another one, preferably a "better" one. If Colbert is being simply lauded on the left as having balls and denigrated on the right as a yet-another, then it only pushed everyone further into their rut, and that satire was therefore a failure. If it got Bush supporters to both laugh and ponder, then it was a qualified success. (And we don't get to simply blame Bush supporters if they didn't.)

[banquo26.livejournal.com]

I didn't see or hear the performance, but that not withstanding, it is a scary thing to go in front of a crowd of people who LIKE you and make them laugh, let alone a group who you know will most likely NOT like what you have to say. Even in "good fun".

I can't recall ever hearing of Pres Clinton "not finding that funny". This does seem to be yet another telling sign that this administration is lacking in key areas that were present in even his fathers.

Colbert is brave, because performing for the President is a BIG deal. To perform "hostel" material no matter what the approval ratings are, is more balls that I've got.

[seangrimm.livejournal.com]

Its just stuck on loading for me and I haven't seen or heard anything about it before this. I've seen enough Colbert Reports to know what kind of a guy he is though and how his comedy works. He won't make you die laughing I don't think but when you watch him mock someone right to their face or saying something outrageous but relevant you "get it" as he says. He's more of an actor like that really, if he sat down privately with Bush I'm sure he'd be talking and making jokes about being rich and hating black people just so he could watch Bush agree with him, secretly laughing inside his own brain at how utterly ridiculous the man is.

I found it on youtube, that actually play for me. I just saw the part where he says he is appaulled to be around the liberal media destroying america, with the exception of fox news, from that sentence alone I have a pretty good idea of how the rest of it went down. I'm sure he was serious toned and mocked everyone of those bastards to their faces.

follow up

[seangrimm.livejournal.com]

also, MI:3 does look really freakin good. I only want to see if because of Mister Hoffman, if he wasn't in it I wouldn't even consider seeing a scientologist made movie.

[interdisciple.livejournal.com]

Why can't we blame Bush supporters for not laughing or pondering, when being a Bush supporter (in my opinion) often times inherently seems to mean being unshakeable no matter what? I think when stubborn, headstrong "bravery" (aka, hubris) is an, nay, THE ideal, then it's simply impossible to create these openings that you say speak to the success of a working piece of satire. This audience, I'd argue, is in essence un-openable. If the corporate lobbying scandals and fiascos, failed statebuilding missions, tens of thousands of lost lives, unprecedented and potentially irreversible national debt, increased ideological inflammation, and lack of successful capture of key terrorists haven't stirred the Bush supporter toward ponderance, then I'm sorry, but NO pithy satirist, no matter how poignant, clever, bridging, or "on," EVER will--muchos huevos grandes or no. i still commend colbert's wit, bravery, and performance alike.

Also, the thing about the Left's sort of kicking Bush while he's down is not entirely fair or accurate. Most of this group in particular (Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, et al) have been consistently raising issues at every given opportunity from the get-go. This is because it was clear to them, as well as to many others, that this administration would reap exactly what it sowed, and now we're all suffering the consequences of their doing just that. Irony and satire, in all its oppresive complacency, seems to be the core of what the Left has left. So, if the Left drives that home, now more than ever, they have every right to. Costly mistakes hurt.

[interdisciple.livejournal.com]

Oh, I realize the issue wasn't whether they had the right to: the issue was whether or not it can be considered ballsy. Let me add then that these folks have showed balls from the get-go, and I don't doubt that if Colbert had the opportunity to do the same thing but when Bush's ratings were much higher, he would've still jumped at the chance and performed equally well.

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

Your opinion that "being a Bush supporter [...] often times inherently seems to mean being unshakeable no matter what" is so vaguely defined that it can neither blame nor exonerate. (If the qualifying words are removed, we're left with "being a Bush supporter means being unshakeable", which is flat-out incorrect, which I suspect is why you put in the qualifying words. But again, it ends up not saying anything.)

You seem to be wrestling with the problem of changing a mindset which you find impenetrable. That's my impression of your perspective. If I'm right, then you need to check your premises.

You say the spokesmen of TDS have been consistently raising these issues. That has been my impression as well. Meanwhile, I, and others, have collectively consistently raised responses to these issues that indicate that all the satire in the world TDS cares to create amounts to zero, so long as the satire fails to understand the motivations behind Bush supporters. All the satirists and wailers seem to be able to do is conclude that Bush supporters are all warmongers (they're not), all religious zealots (they're not), all greedy corporatists (they're not), all stupid (they're not), or all unhumorous (they're not). That's not what I consider good satire; if it were good, it would poke at the satirized by its own rules. As a result, these brave satirists just bravely drove their own truck into the ditch. They're writing some irony and illustrating a different kind of irony at the same time.

I suppose there's a sense (and I'm deliberately hyperbolizing here) in which a man who swims through a trench of gasoline to run into a burning building on the other side to save a family he believes is on the street behind it, can be called brave. But geez.

Again, if I'm right about your perspective, then check your premises. Either the mindset is not completely impenetrable, or doesn't need to be changed in the way you understand, or both, to some degree.