Some quick reactions, not to refute any of what you've written, but just to give my thoughts. I did watch Chapelle's "The Closer." I saw someone who knows his medium, is willing to push right up to the line or even a little over, who is deliberately provocative, and who slyly lays traps for his critics. If someone takes the bait, he inwardly knows that they've just made fools of themselves.
I think he had a genuine affection for Daphne Dorman. He understood that the community of comedians and the community of people who struggle are significant ones that both of them shared. He's asserting a personal connection over politics, but his critics don't get that. They're too eagerly taking sides—and I think Chapelle might privately feel that fulfilled one of the objectives of his show.
Chapelle is constantly mixing genuine personal emotion with jokes. Not everyone gets that, and in that way, it's a greater commentary on who gets to define the role of the comedian.
Thank you, I agree. Some reactions to your reactions:
I remember when Dave Chappelle first returned after his 10 year hiatus and was asked about his role as a comedian. His response: "The reconciliation of opposites."
I think he's even smarter and better-versed than he lets on. Like Norm MacDonald, who famously stated that a comedian shouldn't try to seem smarter than his audience, he likely dumbs down his performance so that more people get it (although you're right, many people still don't).
Part of what it means to be a comedian of the people is to take on the role of the average person. Does Dave truly believe the views reflected in all of his jokes? Probably not, but there are many who do. So Dave presents the most articulate, humorous version of their views, and then becomes the focal point of all the outrage that would otherwise remain a shadowy threat because nobody else dares to say what many secretly think. Exposing that fear allows us to have the conversation that otherwise wouldn't be had. Hopefully, some people's views become more nuanced and greater compassion and understanding gets achieved as a result.
It's disconcerting to think comedians like Dave are a dying breed. His views may feel a little antiquated to some, but I don't see anybody in the generation of comedians who followed who are willing to goad the elephants in the room. Comedians used to have trouble getting booked on TV unless they kept their acts clean and socially acceptable. Today those restrictions are much looser, and yet almost all the young comedians I've seen have fairly myopic and socially acceptable standup routines.
"Part of what it means to be a comedian of the people is to take on the role of the average person." Yes. That's why people laugh: the comedian reveals thoughts most of us have yet are unwilling to voice. Those people using Chapelle for their own purposes are trying to re-introduce a layer of inhibition that is contrary to the premise of comedy. They are, sadly, "not in on the joke."
Some quick reactions, not to refute any of what you've written, but just to give my thoughts. I did watch Chapelle's "The Closer." I saw someone who knows his medium, is willing to push right up to the line or even a little over, who is deliberately provocative, and who slyly lays traps for his critics. If someone takes the bait, he inwardly knows that they've just made fools of themselves.
I think he had a genuine affection for Daphne Dorman. He understood that the community of comedians and the community of people who struggle are significant ones that both of them shared. He's asserting a personal connection over politics, but his critics don't get that. They're too eagerly taking sides—and I think Chapelle might privately feel that fulfilled one of the objectives of his show.
Chapelle is constantly mixing genuine personal emotion with jokes. Not everyone gets that, and in that way, it's a greater commentary on who gets to define the role of the comedian.
Thank you, I agree. Some reactions to your reactions:
I remember when Dave Chappelle first returned after his 10 year hiatus and was asked about his role as a comedian. His response: "The reconciliation of opposites."
I think he's even smarter and better-versed than he lets on. Like Norm MacDonald, who famously stated that a comedian shouldn't try to seem smarter than his audience, he likely dumbs down his performance so that more people get it (although you're right, many people still don't).
Part of what it means to be a comedian of the people is to take on the role of the average person. Does Dave truly believe the views reflected in all of his jokes? Probably not, but there are many who do. So Dave presents the most articulate, humorous version of their views, and then becomes the focal point of all the outrage that would otherwise remain a shadowy threat because nobody else dares to say what many secretly think. Exposing that fear allows us to have the conversation that otherwise wouldn't be had. Hopefully, some people's views become more nuanced and greater compassion and understanding gets achieved as a result.
It's disconcerting to think comedians like Dave are a dying breed. His views may feel a little antiquated to some, but I don't see anybody in the generation of comedians who followed who are willing to goad the elephants in the room. Comedians used to have trouble getting booked on TV unless they kept their acts clean and socially acceptable. Today those restrictions are much looser, and yet almost all the young comedians I've seen have fairly myopic and socially acceptable standup routines.
"Part of what it means to be a comedian of the people is to take on the role of the average person." Yes. That's why people laugh: the comedian reveals thoughts most of us have yet are unwilling to voice. Those people using Chapelle for their own purposes are trying to re-introduce a layer of inhibition that is contrary to the premise of comedy. They are, sadly, "not in on the joke."