We Need To Talk About The Dave Chappelle Netflix Thing, Like We Did The Last Dave Chappelle Thing
Back in the before times, Dave Chappelle had a special called “Sticks and Stones” and it was pretty controversial. We talked about it here.
I wasn’t going to watch it because, as I’ve said, I’m not really a fan of stand-up. Not even of Dave Chappelle’s.
Sadly, I *AM* a fan of controversy and this one has buckets and buckets of controversy. So, I watched it for myself and came to the conclusion that…yeah…we probably need a place to talk about it here the way we had a place to talk about the last one.
My first impression of the Closer was that it wasn’t that funny. How does it compare to Sticks and Stones? Here’s what I said about Sticks/Stones back then:
Looking back at it now, it felt like all of the material in the show was disjointed…Like it came from three different shows. Two of the shows that he lifted stuff from were pretty good. The third? Meh.
Well, that sort of happened here too. But, like, it felt *MORE* disjointed. If I was reminded of anything, I was reminded of Lenny Bruce’s later shows where he would talk about Freedom of Speech Theory before reading excerpts from his trial transcripts. It felt like people went there hoping for a Dave Chappelle show and, instead, got three different Dave Chappelles, only one of which was there to do the comedy show thing.
As for the comedy itself? Chappelle has a handful of traditionally “offensive” jokes (“Space Jews” was one, Mike Pence being gay being another) but those felt like he put those in after the fact. Sort of like “we’re going to be offending everybody tonight so buckle up!” afterthoughts of jokes. The second Chappelle in the show was pretty much the reason people tuned in like they were slowing down passing an upside-down car: Dave was, once again talking about 2SLGBTQQIA+ issues.
And, yes, Dave Chappelle talks about these a *LOT*. Back during the Sticks and Stones brouhaha, I said (yes, I’m quoting myself again):
I imagine that, some day, some comedian will have a bit about how Pride is the best goddamn thing to ever happen to White Supremacy. And the right people will be offended. And the wrong people will write posts about how they didn’t find it funny, but you should see the bit anyway.
Well, that day has arrived. This is, more or less, the show that has that bit in it.
In between meandering stories that felt like Lenny Bruce’s fixation on his trial transcripts, Chappelle has some withering insights about his life over the last couple of years since Sticks and Stones came out. There are fewer laugh-out-loud funny jokes (though they do show up) but more of the “ouch” stories (similar to the one he had with Standards and Practices). There were several stories that had me end up saying “ouch”. (The best one, if you ask me, was him speaking about his moment in the restaurant where he confronted the people who were filming their friend bugging him and his family when they were just trying to go out to eat. But his Da Baby bit was withering as well.)
The third Chappelle closed the show with a story about a friend of his who, sadly, committed suicide. It seemed to me that he was telling a story about a friend of his while, at the same time, I could see how someone would accuse him of pink washing (or whatever the current year term is) his transphobia.
Now the show has had multiple culture war-esque ripples…there was the Netflix walkout, the coverage of the Netflix walkout, the coverage of the coverage of the Netflix walkout…if you enjoy culture war drama, there’s no shortage of it to be found. Most notably, it was signaled that it was time, once again, for this team to yell about cancelling their accounts and that team to yell about renewing it.
At this moment in time, Rotten Tomatoes says that Dave Chappelle’s Sticks and Stones special has this tomatometer/audience score:
And, at this moment in time, it has these for The Closer:
The gulf between those scores? That’s pretty indicative of the cultural divide.
As for my take?
As comedy goes, the show wasn’t particularly funny. I suppose it’s a failure in that regard.
As spoken-word efforts go? I thought the show was worth listening to in another window while you were doing something else. He’s an insightful guy. Could have been a preacher in another life. As a sermon goes, the show has some stuff in there that will grab you, make you think, and have you say “ouch”…and, interestingly, the weakest part of it was the jokes that felt like they were written back in 2003 when Chappelle’s Show was on the air.
Or, in a way, it felt like it was taken from a séance with the late Lenny Bruce after he finally stopped giving his rant about his First Amendment rights.
I canceled my Netflix subscription over their removal of a bunch of episodes involving non-racist use of dark makeup, so I haven’t seen it.
I have seen the “Repent, motherfisher!” video. That was pretty good, though I do wonder whether the histrionic response was staged.Report
I cancelled my Netflix subscription when they cancelled (midstream) a 3 year, Emmy Award Winning contract.
Because, a few months later, a friend of a friend (a puppeteer) killed himself, because he was unable to find a job.Report
My comment remains exactly the same as the one I left at the 2019 discussion. I didn’t watch the special and I doubt I will. However I’m hoping the (so far) Netflix refusal to cave is a sign that we’re slowly meandering out of this cultural schizophrenia, craven apologies notwithstanding.
As for the internal protesters/walk-outers/whatever, I have about as much sympathy for them as I do a vegan waiter demanding accommodations from a steakhouse.Report
Preoccupied. He was attempting to do a comedy special while preoccupied with something else.
I guffawed a few times (the J&J joke got me as well as a handful of others)… his delivery is still first rate. But mostly its a long slow capitulation to the thing he says he’s not capitulating to. That it is unsatisfactory to the folks he’s not capitulating to, doesn’t surprise me. It reminded me of the Aziz Ansari attempt at not capitulating on stage. Unfunny and mostly unsuccessful. But I’d give it two thumbs up.Report
It all sounds so serious. Like they forgot the point of comedy is to make people laugh. Fighting the cultural politiburo, while important, is often as unfunny as capitulating to the politiburo.Report
His best bit in Sticks and Stones was his conversation with Standards and Practices.
So it’s *POSSIBLE*.
But, yeah. It’s tough even for someone many consider the GOAT. (Lord knows, Lenny Bruce failed.)Report
That was genius… the joke emerges like a sunrise, but not the less for seeing it coming… in fact it makes the enjoyment of it better for seeing it.Report
I think you have to be able to just completely knock it out of the park in a way that puts being funny above the message. Otherwise you get a really jarring inconsistency of tone that kills the mood. Like I am not a huge stand-up fan but the one time I went to a comedy club it was notable for how relentless it felt. By the end everyone was just dying. But you can’t get people going like that if you keep slamming on the brakes for a ‘but seriously, this IS a very important topic…’
Probably the most effective comedic takedown of planet woke I’ve seen is this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
It’s silly throughout, including the disturbingly dark ending. But one wonders if someone like Dave Chapelle could even pull this off anymore given his status as 2nd generation woke icon (90s PCism was gen 1, I think we’re now in gen 3)? I kinda doubt it.Report
I’ve said elsewhere but the edgier a joke is, the better it has to land…
It’s like that cartoon where a well-dressed attractive man says “how YOU doin'” and the woman in the cube thinks “I wanna have his babies”, and the fat slobby guy says “uh, hi?” and the woman thinks “calling HR on this one”. You can get away with a lot when you’re charismatic!Report
Yeah, that’s what makes it unsatisfying; he isn’t really fighting the politburo as making an appeal to just get along so we can all get back to fighting white people. The deflection was declined and the submission incomplete. I mean, they even rejected his offer to kick the imperialist Jews. These are not reasonable people you can negotiate with.Report
“Jon Stewart is a Child Molestor!”
Arrested Development’s longform “family bonding moments.”
Drawn Together pulled off a hilariously funny Holocaust joke. But I won’t spoil that one (other than to say Pink). And they made fun of Bill Cosby… before it was in the news.
Snow Crash.
Standup isn’t the best vehicle to stand up against the politburo, because it’s hard to convince the members of the politburo that you’re really making fun of the other side.
Nobody does “standing up to the cultural politburo” better than Bojack Horseman. Management says, “You gotta have a QUILTBAG”. Asexual it is~~!Report
I don’t have Netflix, but I’ve seen his special “8:46”, so I’m not surprised by this. I
have no problem if a comedian is serious, or says things I don’t agree with.Report
You know, you say things up there like the “cultural politburo”. Meanwhile, I have a daughter who is trans for whom I want a decent life. I want people to take what is up with her seriously, and not freak out about what bathroom she’s gonna use at the mall.
Does that make me a member of the ‘cultural politburo’? Am I supposed to shut up and just grin and bear it? Maybe you’re unhappy because the whole thing makes you uncomfortable. Believe me, you aren’t half as uncomfortable as I was. But it got better for me, it will get better for you.
I know of black trans people, and they are some of the most vulnerable people there are. I know of black people who have said this very thing.
I haven’t’ seen the show. I’m not interested in trying to shut it down. I am interested in making the world better for my daughter. So if that makes me a “nazi” so be it.Report
What is a decent life? Are we allowed to ask that?
If you ask a decent Republican, they’ll admit that killing people who have fallen victim to advertising is probably a really dumb idea (Yes, this is buying into a rhetorical frame. Bear with me.)
If you are telling me that “misgendering” someone is now “violence” worth firing a teacher over… Well, that’s a different sort of “good life.” It’s a life where your feelings are treated as more important than whether someone is a good teacher or not (or a good garbageman). If someone is acting unprofessionally, that should be dealt with. But people get fired for accidents, when you start making rules.Report
Are we talking about accidentally misgendering someone or stubbornly refusing to recognize gender transition? Those aren’t the same thing. In the former case, of course they should not be fired. Accidents happen. In the latter case, yes they should be fired. Obviously. Treating minority groups with basic respect is a job requirement, as it should be.Report
What’s the difference between a bully and a thug? What they want.
You’ve proven yourself to be a bully, and to support bullies. You believe that someone’s speech in their free time is worth hounding them out of their professional career, whether or not they’re acting professionally while on the clock.
I wish I was just making up slurs, in the above. As it is, I am just profoundly disappointed with my interlocutor.Report
Man, if only you could see the irony of your words.Report
Am I a bully? Sure, weak people often are. I’m working on being more secure in my own skin, and less of a narcissist.
I, however, have never advocated doxxing people for their behavior on the internet, and hounding them out of jobs, under the “They Deserve It” banner.Report
“Does that make me a member of the ‘cultural politburo’? Am I supposed to shut up and just grin and bear it?”
hey remember the church lady skits and how sidesplitting they all were and how we all laughed and laughed and laughed at the guy pretending to be a church lady and how any time someone complained they were to just shut up and grin and bear it
“but Christians had a lot of cultural and political power!”
oh, so it depends on whether or not someone’s powerful, and you’re saying that trans people are not? like, I could go out and in my public persona make a transphobic statement and I wouldn’t lose my job over it?Report
I haven’t seen the show, and, not having Netflix, probably won’t. I’ve heard Bill Maher whining and now there’s this. In neither case have those of us who haven’t seen the show been told whatever DC said that set people off. Like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.
Comedians can say what they damn please and Netflix can show what it wants. People who don’t like what the comedians say can say so. If they don’t want to send their money to comedians they don’t like or venues that carry them, they have every right not to do that. And they don’t have any more obligation to be polite about it than the comedians had in the first instance, which is basically none.
Many comedians find, after they have been around a while, that the audience has changed and doesn’t laugh at their old stuff. Good comedians adjust, hack comedians whine.Report
I wouldn’t call Dave Chappelle’s show “whining”. He’s not saying “you can’t do comedy anymore!”
He’s saying “You can kill black people and it won’t harm your career. You hurt the feelings of a gay person? You’re out of there!” And he gives some funny/insightful examples.
Which seems different than “whining”. He’s observing and discussing cultural dynamics.
“that the audience has changed and doesn’t laugh at their old stuff”
Not quite the dynamic. He’s observing that if he was doing his old stuff, the audience would still be laughing.Report
I didn’t ask what Jaybird said. I asked what Chappelle said.Report
If my paraphrases are insufficient, here’s his section on Da Baby (CW: language, racial slurs, insensitivity to gay peoples’ feelings):
Here’s his section on Feminism (the section with Anne is the part that I find interesting) (CW: misogyny, insensitivity to important issues, insensitivity in general, transmisogyny):
Report
(ahem) You didn’t ask anything, you said “I haven’t seen the show, and, not having Netflix, probably won’t.”
God help your clients, because what you’ve got damn sure won’t.Report
Reading comprehension still a problem DD? As for my clients, they are happy, and, given the results, they ought to be.Report
(I understand that this is where you unload all the frustrated anger you feel at the people you depend on for your income.)Report
It’s far from clear that you “understand” anything. Jaybird, who has exhibited reading comprehension problems of his own, clearly understood my initial comment as a request for what Chappelle said. The proof? He provided it.
I have no “frustrated anger” at my clients, if that’s who you mean by the people I depend on for my income. I like them, they like me. Maybe you mean the people who sue my clients? It would be foolish of me to be angry with them, because without them I wouldn’t have clients to begin with.Report
“I have no “frustrated anger” at my clients…”
I understand that you need to tell yourself this.Report
Now you’re not even trying.Report
Interesting to compare this essay to the other one about Dreher and conservative’s embrace of “traditional” culture.
The current cultural battles aren’t between censors and free thinkers, but between competing sets of censors. Or maybe its better to say, the battle is over just where the boundaries of acceptable speech should be drawn, and by whom.Report
Our Tipper Gores are good. Their Tipper Gores are bad.
The people who say “we shouldn’t have Tipper Gores” are crazy and never answer the question “well, who *SHOULD* be censoring records?”Report
“We shouldn’t have Tipper Gores” is a bumper sticker in search of an argument.Report
I think the argument is that there will always be Tipper Gores, but no one is under any moral obligation to make them the gatekeepers of anything.Report
the battle is over just where the boundaries of acceptable speech should be drawn, and by whom.
Honk honk.Report
It’s all well and good until it’s our ox that gets Tipper Gored.
other than that, I have no opinions. I don’t generally find stand up funny and I don’t have a Netflix subscription so I probably shouldn’t even make the drive-by comment I did there.Report
Yeah, this show wouldn’t be one that changes your mind. (But good to see you show up here!)Report
Didn’t our own Tod used to say the battle isn’t between freedom and tyranny but rather where freedoms butt up against each other? Or some such thing?Report
Right because every time somebody launches into “there should be no censorship” all you need to do is toss out a few examples and eventually they get to saying “OF COURSE no one should be allowed to say THAT! Censoring THAT is just common sense!”
Which isn’t hypocrisy its just that everyone has boundaries of acceptable speech.Report
Is saying that certain speech is “unacceptable” the same as saying “no one should be allowed to say” it?Report
You shouldn’t be wielding power over me. I should be wielding power over you.
And if you don’t agree with me about this edge case, it just goes to demonstrate how little power you should be wielding in general.
(But if you agree with me, I’ll agree that it’d be okay for you to wield power.)Report
What if I prefer that — with regards to speech — no adult has any power over any other adult but does retain power over themselves.
Ergo, I have no mechanism to stop Dave Chapelle from saying what he said in this comedy special. I can’t seek to have him arrested or sue him or anything of that nature. But I could choose to not spend my own money subscribing to Netflix.
How’s that fit in?
Note: I have no actual take on Chapelle here. I haven’t seen the special. I’m just using him as the example because he is the topic of the post.Report
“Don’t tell me what to do!”
“Don’t tell me not to tell you what to do!”
Both sides in that argument are on both sides of that argument.
The best argument that appeals to me is some variant of “you’re not my dad”.
Which doesn’t mean “don’t tell me what to do”, exactly… but “if you’re going to appeal to your own authority, please make your authority legible first.”
A lot of these moral scolds don’t. And don’t see why they’d need to.Report
What “authority” do “scolds” need in order to scold? Do they need any more authority to flap their gums than the original gum flapper had?Report
If their needs will be met by scolding, I guess their needs are being met.
If their needs require being listened to, they need to make their authority legible first.
A lot of these moral scolds don’t. And don’t see why they’d need to.Report
Who, other than the scolds themselves, cares whether their “needs” are met? The right to say what you want doesn’t impose an obligation on anyone else to listen.Report
The right to say what you want doesn’t impose an obligation on anyone else to listen.
Very true! (Though I kinda thought that I made this clear when I mentioned the argument that best appeals to me.)
But when the moral scolds get told that they haven’t made their authority legible? Woo doggies. They get *UPSET*.Report
So?Report
Dude! I *AGREE*!
“So what?”
The problem is that some of them resort to retaliation of some kind.
Believe it or not, Dave Chappelle had a bit in his show about that sort of thing. (Sadly, I wasn’t able to find a clip of it… but the gist was that he and his family were out to eat and someone came up to his table and started talking to them and was being obnoxious and Dave noticed that he was being filmed by a couple of gay people at another table. He concluded that these people were in cahoots and were hoping to go viral and so he gave them what they presumably wanted and confronted them by yelling. The guy filming called the cops. Dave said “this guy went from being gay to being white in a flash.” He went on: “It’s not like the cops are going to ask ‘which one of you people is Clifford?'” He went on to briefly mention what happens when the cops show up and there’s a black guy at the scene.)
“So what?”
Well… sometimes those who are told “you’re not my dad” try to make sure that spankings are applied anyway.
Sometimes they succeed.Report
I think a lot depends on…
“You can’t do that?!”
“Oh… I can’t??? JUST WATCH ME!”
-versus-
“You shouldn’t do that?”
“Why the hell not?”
“Here’s reasons A, B, C, and D.”
“Okay… you’ve convinced me” or “Eh… I don’t agree that I shouldn’t do it so I’m going to keep doing it.”
I mean, both of those situations are fine to happen… ultimately, they’re just folks having a dispute. To me, the latter is the preferable route. But any one person telling any other person what to do with no actual ability to make them do that is just flapping their gums.Report
See, right now because we’re talking about a comedian making jokes about sex, its easy to say ” no adult has any power over any other adult “.
But, human speech is more than dick jokes.
Like, suppose I gather a bunch of guys to discuss our plans for robbing a bank?
That’s criminal f*cking conspiracy. We could go to jail, just for speaking words! Not actions, just…speaking words.
Or if I write a tweet saying false and defamatory things? Same thing, i can get sued and be forced to pay damages, just for speaking words.
Or pornography involving minors. Speak those words, create those images, and men with guns, cages, etc.
We all have boundaries where we want to exert power over others.Report
“Don’t say the following things or else I will have someone else kill you.”
This, at least, makes one’s own authority legible.Report
Even accepting your point, here we are, agreeing that we should control the words and expressions of other adults.
In other words, yeah rights are complicated
Eta: responding to Kazzy.Report
Even accepting your point, here we are, agreeing that we should control the words and expressions of other adults.
Well, I think that the interesting part is the whole issue of “if you’re going to appeal to your own authority, please make your authority legible first.”
A lot of these moral scolds don’t. And don’t see why they’d need to.Report
I’m confused;
Are people who, as Kazzy mentioned, want to ban child pornography, “moral scolds” and is their authority “illegible”?
Or is it only people you don’t like who are moral scolds with illegible authority?Report
A difference in degree, if large enough, becomes a difference in kind.
Instead of child pornography, perhaps we could pivot to holocaust denial.
I think that it would be inappropriate to compare Dave Chappelle’s show to holocaust denial. And inappropriate to say “well, if you think that it’s okay that holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, then you agree that some speech should be made illegal and, therefore, we’re haggling when we discuss banning Chappelle’s special!”
I say to you:
No.
There are differences of degree, if large enough, that become differences of kind.
Dave Chappelle’s show is not analogizable to holocaust denial.
It is not analogizable to many, many things. And the existence of those many, many things should not be used as justification for shutting down Dave Chappelle.
Indeed, I think comparing Chappelle’s show to holocaust denial does more to trivialize holocaust denial than it does to communicate the seriousness of the allegations against Chappelle.Report
What adults’ words and expression do I suggest we control?
All I’ve agreed to is that child pornography should be illegal and that is because of the physical, mental, and emotional harm the physical acts required to produce it do to children.Report
Call me crazy but… the only one of those I’d criminalize would be child pornography.
A bunch of guys want to sit around and talk about robbing a bank? Let ’em. If they never set foot inside a bank, as far as I’m concerned, they haven’t done anything wrong. And if all they do inside a bank is cash a check, so be it.Report
Yeah, this argument seems like it could be used to shut down D&D games. “They’re talking about being Murder Hobos!”Report
“the only one of those I’d criminalize would be child pornography.”
Who’s a child?
What’s pornography?
Are dress codes child pornography? (This is not Kimmieposting, this was an actual issue in the 1990s with court cases and everything. The answer may surprise you!)Report
Chip, other than child pornography*, this is not an accurate summary of the law. Generally criminal conspiracy statutes require not only talking about the crime but actually taking some material step towards committing it. A successful suit for defamation requires not just proving that the false statement was made but establishing that there were damages (how difficult this is varies, at least where I practice).
*While the laws I’m aware of on this are closer to ‘strict liability’ there’s at least typically some mens rea with respect to possession alone and certainly always evidentiary requirements. In any case the idea that there’s all these legal exceptions to free speech in America and we’re just negotiating how many there should be and the scope is patently false.Report
Fair point.
But its true that not all speech is or can be protected, that some forms of speech not only can be punished after the fact, but with prior restraint.
I’m pushing back against the idea that the boundaries of speech and expression are simple and obvious.Report
Child Pornography is perfectly legal, provided you draw your own. Or write your own. It is the physical act of involving a child in a sexually charged act that is illegal.
You’d have been better off citing terrorism.Report
Gotta say, this is not where I expected the conversation to go.Report
Really? Y’all didn’t look at my name and get the joke?
They Are Banning “Let’s Go Brandon” songs for being hate speech.
Yeah, I’m on a “Free Speech is Good” and “We can’t go making fun of the President? So much for Punching UP!”
Obvious moniker is Obvious.Report
I’m not on Reddit or 4Chan so no, I don’t get any of this.Report
Do you think that people should be required to use others’ preferred terms of gender?Report
Required? Like, legally? Like, go to jail or pay a fine if you don’t?
No. I don’t think anyone should be required to use others’ preferred terms of gender.
Do I think a work place or school can set expectations for interactions between colleagues or students/teachers or employees/customers? Sure. And could that include expectations for terms of gender? Sure.Report
I think this is completely legitimate. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. The real question on the ground is how we’re supposed to respond to a handful of employees who feel it’s their right and moral imperative to exercise a veto at a giant content production and distribution company.Report
“We” as consumers?
“We” as society?
Seems their veto attempt failed, right?Report
It did, and I think it’s good it did. I hope more people and institutions refuse to blink.Report
So far the institutions refuse to blink only when the targets are wealthy or popular enough to make blinking costly. Under other circumstances the targets get heaved under the bus promptly and often disproportionately.Report
Most of the time that’s true but there have been some exceptions here and there. Trader Joe’s if I recall faced one down last year, as did Basecamp recently.
The amazing thing is how weak these flare-ups turn out to be when anyone gives the smallest push back. At some point more people will realize that you really can ride right over them in meat space without much consequence.
I mean, how many people even participated in this particular tempest in a teapot with Chapelle? Deep down everyone knows that the claims of ‘harm’ are fake or so de minimis they can’t be taken seriously.Report
And if you’ve never seen Daphne’s tweet:
Report
This is irrelevant, subjective and also meaningless. There are currently huge parts of the political sphere attempting to gin votes and favor through bigoted anti-trans stances. Trans people are currently a disadvantaged minority and targets for violence. But there is also a movement to call awareness to these issues. Chapelle is a big comedian worth of around 50 million (google estimate). Many trans people financially struggle.Report
Daphne was a friend of Dave Chappelle’s. He talks about her in his special and specifically mentions this particular tweet.
That makes it relevant.
As for subjectivity (as opposed to… what? objectivity?) and meaning, I can only shrug.Report
Without the “uproar” over culture war crap how much would anybody care. Sure his fans would but that is the same with every entertainer. He poked at how things are changing which is basic comedy. But how should things be? Don’t just poke and jest but what does he want. How should trans people be treated? I have no idea what he wants but know it’s easier to be known for controversy then for earnestly stating what you want and taking any heat you getReport
He discusses the bathroom bills in the show and calls them bad laws. When it came to the #MeToo movement, he specifically said “Doing X was bad. They should have done Y.”
He does spend most of his comedic time complaining about how Black people are treated (his special 8:46 spends a *LOT* of time on this).Report
Haven’t seen the shows but comics know when they are courting controversy. Don’t have a problem with that as long as there is no whining. A lot of our bs culture war crap is people saying how upset everybody is about things almost nobody is upset over. Twitter is great for finding the person you want to be upset over.
If people are pissed at whatever he said about trans people then he could directly address that. My guess is he fine with keeping the pot boiling a bit. Regardless free speech is fine and dandy. Well except for all the anti CRT type bills.Report
Well, as a white-passing Native American, let me just say “There can never really be justice on stolen land.”
Perhaps after everything is made right, we can finally have funny comedians.Report
You’re right, we need to give it back to the Brits.Report
I think Jaybird’s point goes a bit farther back than the Brits.Report
Yeah I remember when we weren’t allowed to have funny comedians. Worst nano second of my life. In the future people who want to push the edge and be controversial will be able to do so without any controversy.Report
I blame Brandon.Report
I watched it, mostly because of the controversy, though also because Chappelle used to be, and intermittently still is, really funny. But not no much any more. He takes himself way too seriously if he thinks I want to hear about Dave Chappelle vs.trans people. And he got applause from the audience more than he got laughs, which for a stand-up is a sign of failure.Report
Yeah.
From Norm McDonald Himself:
Report
McDonald had a recurring bit on SNL where he’d read some benign news story, say researchers have finally secured funding to cure a rare disease in white rats. Then he’d say, very seriously, “You know, I bet they would have found funding right away if it was a disease affecting… rich white men.”
What sold it was a sign would flash on the screen reading: Applaud Now.Report
I saw a Whoopi Goldberg concert on TV once, where most of it was her saying the right kind of thing about race, poverty, sexism, etc. and the audience applauding her. I agreed with most of what she was saying, but I wanted comedy and got a revival meeting.Report
I saw Kyle Kinane a few weeks ago.
He got lots of laughter, little applause. That felt right.
Even when he absolutely ripped us (Texans) by conflating a few things we take pride in, and also freezing our asses off last winter he got laughter.
First comedy show I’d seen in ages, well worth it.
His humor tends to meander around observational, self-deprecating, and frankly just playing with words. One of his specials had him joking about being 18 and thinking his creative writing degree would ‘practically pay for itself’.
it did. It just took a decade or two.Report
“Clapter”, I think is the term for it.
And we had this discussion about George Carlin here, where it was mentioned that half of his later acts were just angry rants that had nothing of comedy in them…Report
And when they’re not laughing, they’re really surprised. And sometimes I think, in my little head, that that’s the best comedy of all.
Speaking of Andy Kaufman …Report
The audience score from rotten tomatoes means nothing.Report
Variety has an article talking about Dave’s response to the controversy about his show.
Report
My old band used to have practice across the street from a bar that had cheap nachos and open mic comedy the same night we practiced. So, I saw a lot of aspiring comedians. What I was struck most by was how few of them had a memorable persona. I’m not sure I remember a Phyllis Diller or Rodney Dangerfield joke offhand, but I remember the persona immediately. This was more like one generic, self-depricating dude or lady after another.
Chappelle is very funny, when he’s not doing the Margaret Cho thing of repeating the punchline two or three times and when he’s not stopping to laugh at his punchlines, and really when he has punchlines. To be fair, I heard a lot of hype about the standup special where Hannah Gadsby eschews jokes and punchlines and it was treated as brave and novel.Report
Standup might be obsolete in the current year. To paraphrase Norm, he said that when he was coming up, there were only, like, 50 comedians out there and 5 of them were really good. Now?, he said, there are like 5,000 comedians.
And 5 of them are really good.
If you’re going to spend the length of a set with someone vaguely charismatic and vaguely insightful talk about a subject that you enjoy, why not listen to a podcast instead? At the very least, you’ll get two people talking about Robotech* for 15 minutes.
*or whateverReport
I think it’s not obsolete for dates, especially first dates. If you’re thinking some laughter and drinks might lead to sex, it’s a little obvious to say, “Hey, let’s meet at my place and we’ll listen to a podcast on the couch and see what happens!”Report
Oh God, I can’t even imagine standup as a first date activity.
“Baby, I just want you to know that I found his sexist jokes about feminism to be completely unfunny.”Report
A lot of low-level stand up comedy is doing some humble brags about a semi to very dysfunctional personal life.Report
Monty Python was adamant about not ending sketches with a big laugh. If they did, they’d try to take the curse off with, say, a graphic that announced “The Punch Line!!!!!””. Of course, they’re geniuses. In general, a comedian saying “I don’t do jokes and punchlines” is like a physics student saying “I’m going to fix General Relativity.”Report
Thinking that Monty Python were geniuses, without having to explain /how/ they were geniuses, is kind of telling. I’ve heard talented comedians discuss Monty Python, and to say the least, they weren’t impressed.Report
“To be fair, I heard a lot of hype about the standup special where Hannah Gadsby eschews jokes and punchlines and it was treated as brave and novel.”
I was going to mention this. The really interesting thing is that the Rotten Tomatoes scores for Gadsby are the mirror image of Chappelle’s, but even more distorted. The critics give “Nannette” a 100%, while the audience score is 26%.
I don’t put much in either of these scores. The critics scores are mostly backsolved to make sure the writer has the appropriate take. And the audience scores are skewed by populist reaction and by trolling. But looking at the spreads between the two is often telling.Report
There’s nothing particularly novel about a standup routine where you don’t tell jokes and the focus is on the message. Traditionally this is called a sermon, though.Report
Gadsby offered what I thought was a powerful and sometimes humorous talk. It wasn’t comedy in the way we were expecting it. That’s all well-and-good. They’d have done better to market it differently but there is room for different ways for folks to present their message and I don’t think we should insist that everyone on stage with a mic deliver comedy. Even if they are a comedian by trade.Report
How many comments, and not one link to the free transcript?
I haven’t seen the show, but I was taking notes on the transcript.
Lessons on “how to talk”, primarily.
Lot darker than a lot of comedy skits…Report
Here is a link to W3 schools. It teaches how to embed an html link in a comment much like this one.Report
Just saw a tweet Re Chapelle saying he was willing to give the trans community an audience but he won’t be summoned or bend to their demands. In most other contexts this would make a big star sound like a entitled jerk. Well that is what he sounds like here actually. A giant ” do you know who I am” jerk.
Chappelle added, “To the transgender community, I am more than willing to give you an audience, but you will not summon me. I am not bending to anyone’s demands.” https://t.co/WT7JcvCba6 https://t.co/PByAgOaWrZReport
That’s in the Variety story, linked above.Report
I’ve been marked down for not doing the required reading before. He still sounds like a major jerk here. Definitely not like someone who wants to treat trans people decently.Report
Okay. I can see why you’d think that.
I’d ask you to read what was said in the article that you also linked to:
That’s the starting point. He says that the press said that he was invited to speak with the community and he declined. He said that he was not asked.
So lets go on to the part that you’re specifically talking about.
Here’s the paragraph:
He’s pretty much saying that if they’re going to meet, it’s going to be on his terms, not theirs. (In joking terms, of course… for example, I think that only the first two conditions are important and, let’s face it, “being funny” was not the point of Gadsby’s show and if you think it was, then you missed what the point of Gadsby’s show was.)
Now, instead of thinking about it as a meeting between two sets of people, one the offender, one the offended… I’d like to ask you to maybe jump around and see if there are other non-insane perspectives to look at this from.
Because, like, he sees himself as the wronged party here. That’s his starting point.
And since he sees himself as the wronged party, he doesn’t see himself as the guy who needs to make even more concessions to the people who have already wronged him. Who are complicit with the society that has wronged people who look like him.Report
Don’t know who Gadsby is, so there is that.
Everybody thinks they are the wronged party as a rule. He is rich famous guy who gets specials made. He could be gracious and reach out a hand in good faith. He didn’t take that option. He knows the criticism he is getting and is choosing his reaction. He even has a test for them. In almost any other case the rich hollywood guy would be seen as a raging ego jerk. That is how i’m seeing him here. He wants to make nice and be respectful to people who say they are hurt, then he can do that w/o demands. Damn “give you an audience” , that if FU don’t you know you i am territory. Yeah trans people have been out there killing blacks like they are Chicago PD. Not sure about that.Report
I am happy to agree that Chappelle’s anti-racism is not particularly intersectional.
That doesn’t get me to Chappelle is bad, though. Or even particularly… I don’t know what the right word is for when an African-American thinks more highly of himself than is warranted but I’m not quick to conclude that he is that.Report
Your observation that his act has drifted into Lenny Bruce territory is a good one. Especially the latest Netflix special. But I think you’re taking these quoted comments a bit out of context. They were delivered during a stand-up set. I watched it and I took the list of demands as half-kidding and the Gasby line to conclude the list the punchline. Anyway, I laughed.Report
Fair enough. Full(er) context below:
Report
Jezebel fact-checks Dave Chappelle:
Report
There are many younger millennials and zoomers who decided for good reason that being funny and being mean, especially to people on the margins of life and society, are different. I am not sure that this is entirely correct. Some really funny comedy has a bitting edge to it and might even punch down rather than up. The idea that we should be better as people and not target groups on the margins is a good one though. Comedians should get push back if people find them offensively unfunny.Report
If you go back and read newspapers from like the 40s and 50s, you’ll see white comedians quoted as complaining that you can’t do things like wear blackface or do racist jokes anymore, because everyone’s too sensitive and it’s going to kill comedy.
(Example: https://twitter.com/classicshowbiz/status/1452062382847500291?s=21)
That’s how Chapelle and his defenders are gonna sound to people 50 years from now.Report
“That’s how Chapelle and his defenders are gonna sound to people 50 years from now.”
I would take an even money bet on this claim. Heck, I would even give you odds. It’s more likely that in 50 years we are going to look back and talk about how a cohort of elites went mad with power trying to censor everything and everyone using specious claims of health and safety.
The Rotten Tomatoes scores are a useful data point. As is the ubiquity of ‘Latinx’ in media and academic circles, despite the Latino community’s almost complete disregard for the term. Ditto for the set of points that came to dominate the mainstream media characterization of the BLM movement relative to the political and ideological beliefs of the median black American. This won’t last because it can’t last. There’s no there there.
There has always been a gulf between elite and everyday opinion, but in the past there was a case to be made that elite opinion was informed in a way that everyday opinion was not. That’s no longer the case. Expertise has become decentralized and the center is rotting away.
In all of the mainstream media write-ups on Chappelle that I saw, it was pretty clear that the writer had either not watched the special or had simply chosen to mischaracterize it because that’s what you have to do to have a career in mainstream media. It’s a pattern that I see endlessly repeated. To work as a journalist, you have to continually look around and see what it’s OK or not OK to say, which means the quality of coverage suffers, which means people go elsewhere for reliable information, which means the industry atrophies and journalists become more and more wedded to keeping their standing above doing good work. There’s too many good alternatives to information now for that to remain a stable equilibrium.Report
I watched it. The parts in controversy were strident, boring and mean. Some of the parts where he actually did comedy were funny, but the rest was like that Simpsons episode where Krusty tried to get back into standup with dated yellowface material and wife jokes.Report
“The parts in controversy were strident, boring and mean”
I basically agree with this, but what in them was equivalent to blackface or racist jokes? He was attacking his attackers — not “trans people”, but “censorious activists and craven network execs”.Report
There’s an interesting aspect of this which I think Jaybird touched on (and what I think is a primary driver of Chapelle’s rage) where the vanguard enforcing these codes are not ‘marginalized’ but are a bunch of well-to-do white people. The very same ones Chapelle used to tut tut at in the early aughts.
They were his biggest fans.Report
He was a lot funnier when he was making fun of crackheads and doing “Black Bush” skits.Report
As someone whose worked in homeless advocacy for a long time, I can tell you there were absolutely people complaining about the “crackhead” jokes when the show was on the air. But those complaints didn’t fit as neatly into the culture war paradigm, and so people really didn’t talk about it.Report
Oh, there were *PLENTY* of people who were complaining about how offensive Chappelle’s Show was at the time!
Few of them were fashionable. Mostly waveawayable by how how funny he was. What did the five fingers say to the face? lolReport
Freddie, as usual, has some takes on the whole BLM matter that is related to the Chapelle controversy. As usual his points are rock solid and the writing is fire:
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/short-week-as-if-politics-mattered
As with all things woke, it seems to me that the volume is so high, the denunciations so shrill and the anger so visible because the stakes are so very low.Report
You agitated for racial justice and what you got was the NY Times capitalizing ‘Black.’
And some people’s lives are so constructed around what’s written in the NY Times that they process this is a victory.Report
Yup, and for those mostly white, mostly well off twitter warriors that’s victory.Report
The Impossible burger joke was absolutely a mean-spirited attack on Trans people.
The jokes about censorious activists weren’t funny not because you can’t make fun of censorious activists but because the jokes were boring. (Good rule of thumb: if a joke would fit comfortably in the script of the movie PCU, it’s tired – find something new)Report
Oh, I forgot that he did make a couple of actual trans jokes. Was that one “mean-spirited”? I guess that’s a matter of interpretation. He made a number of pointedly offensive jokes directed at different groups — as folks have mentioned, that was part of the purpose of his show, to question who is and isn’t off limits now to comedians (or to Black comedians in particular). But anyway, I understand your position better now.Report
De gustibus non est disputandum, so you are free to process Chapelle’s material as you see fit. You will get no push back from me on that.
My claim is simply that Dave Chappelle’s body of work will age much better than wokeness will.Report
50 years from now I doubt anyone but a few comedy enthusiasts will remember Dave Chappelle. Comedy just doesn’t age that well in general. How many comedians from the early 70s are still in today’s zeitgeist?
As for “wokeness”…. whatever that means…. my observation is that the attacks on it are identical to the right-wing moral outrage over “political correctness” in the early 90s with a new paint job.Report
“How many comedians from the early 70s are still in today’s zeitgeist?”
The Top 20?
Ok, maybe not Richard Lewis.Report
Let’s see… George Carlin, yes. Richard Pryor? Not really. Steve Martin, yes… but not really as a comedian per se. Cheech Marin, yes… Jerry Seinfeld, sure… Hey, Bill Cosby! Letterman, Leno… Jeez. Of all of those, who is still in the zeitgeist?
I’d say Seinfeld is the only one still in the actual zeitgeist.
And only because culture is stuck. I’d say everybody else in the top 20 merely captures the “hey, I’ve heard of him” geist.Report
Whose Zeit, which Geist?
That’s the only way you could argue against it… parse zeitgeist into meaninglessness.Report
It’s like the Smothers Brothers showing up in the Cannonball Run movies, though. Or the various members of the Rat Pack.
Maybe part of the problem is that some things are speeding up at the same time that other things are slowing down.
Boyz II Men are playing The Mirage. Wayne Newton is still playing at the Palace. REO Speedwagon is there too? Holy cow. Kevin Cronin hasn’t aged a day.Report
Huh. Mort Sahl just died.
Here’s his classic 1967 bit where he explains politics:
Report
“As for “wokeness”…. whatever that means…. my observation is that the attacks on it are identical to the right-wing moral outrage over “political correctness” in the early 90s with a new paint job.”
OK, this is where I check out of this conversation. If we cannot acknowledge plain facts about the world in which we live, then what’s the point?Report
You must be new here.Report
The 1990s were all about right-wingers selling supplements and reverse mortgages by whipping up a moral panic about pollical correctness, which prodded high-minded magazines with cover stories about the new PC censorship. All while in the meantime, conservatives were taking over school boards and banning books and firing teachers over “multiculturalism” and gay issues. Sound familiar?Report
Fairfax County High School English class assigns novel by American Nobel Prize winner. Vote for me and I’ll put a stop to this.Report
The only thing from the early 1970s that captures today’s zeitgeist is runaway inflation.Report
In the past people were wrong about something, ergo everyone who disagrees with me right now is wrong and bad.
Huh. That’s weird. I copied and pasted what you said, but it looks slightly different for some reason.Report
A very trenchant thought:
https://twitter.com/NoChorus/status/1452782751195836420
“increasingly convinced that arresting Lenny Bruce for obscenity and the misunderstanding that created in subsequent generations of comedians about their role in society was one of the most successful pysops of all time.”Report
They didn’t have the Streisand Effect yet.Report
Chappelle is just lucky that some mother hasn’t complained that her teenage son suffered nightmares after watching his show.
Because you know, that sh!t will get you banned.Report
Deadspin offers its own insight:
Report
If you want to understand our present moment, just note that the guy writing minimum wage hot takes to drive revenue to a private equity group is calling Chapelle and Irving pawns. Chapelle, the guy who once walked away from a $55 million contract renewal because he didn’t feel good about the way that some people were processing his show, and Irving, who spent his time off during Covid buying George Floyd’s family a house, paying some people’s college tuition, and donating to WNBA players who opted out of the 2020 season.
Heck, I even think that Irving is wrong not to take the vaccine. But it’s his body and his career and he is choosing to deal with the consequences of his actions.
This whole obsession with being “on the right side” speaks to what I mention above. Some people have become functionally incapable of processing ideas as ideas, but only as avatars for this or that faction of the eternal culture war.Report
I know that trans people have become the go-to culture war enemy of Republicans but I wonder how they imagine this is going to play out, like what victory looks like in their heads.
I mean, what they are fighting is not some radical insurgency against the status quo- trans folk and their friends ARE the status quo.Report
Who are the Republicans in this story?Report
Most of Chappelle’s defenders are the same people participating in the Woke Panic.
Which is the centerpiece of Republican campaign messaging in 2021. Youngkin in Virginia, Mandel in Ohio for example.Report
When you stop viewing everything through the lens of partisan politics, the world opens up and becomes a much more interesting place.Report