 |
| Man on a roll in The Colbert Report. |
««««« The
Colbert Report. Monday thru Thursdays at 11:30pm on Comedy Central. Ends
December 18.
The most important cultural event this month not involving Benedict
Cumberbatch is the finale of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report. Since its debut in 2005, the show has arguably
outdone its parent, The Daily Show,
as the benchmark in late night fake news. Colbert (who, unlike his TV
incarnation, pronounces the "t" in his last name) will air his last
show on December 18, before taking over Late
Night on CBS next year.
For those very late to this party, Colbert's show is an
impeccable parody of Fox blowhards like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. His
alter-ego "Stephen Cobert" is one of those gut-level patriots who is
proud to think with his red, white and blue balls instead of—you know—that gray
and white stuff between his ears. Where Jon Stewart's main mode is
self-deprecation, Colbert's character revels in the perfection of his
ignorance. His interviews with guests are couched as ambushes by the forces of
righteousness, predicated on "nailing" people—which he loudly
celebrates whether he has accomplished it or not. And it's all been done on a
consistently high level for more than 1340 episodes.
The comparison with Stewart is key to appreciating how
great the Report has become in its
nine years. Though The Daily Show
gets credit for epitomizing a broader trend toward satirical news, it is not,
strictly speaking, satirical. Stewart's sharp, funny, and quite often true commentary
is always delivered from a distance. That distance might be moralizing, or
exhortatory, or just plain mean, but it is always there. What Stewart does is
best described as clever snark, not satire.
The only truly satirical material in The Daily Show are the reports from its staff of fake
"correspondents", who impersonate the self-importance and showmanship
of network field reporters. Colbert (along with Steve Carell, Ed Helms, John
Oliver, Samantha Bee and many more over the years) came out this fine
tradition, and has arguably raised it to true art.
Make no mistake—I'm a fan of Stewart. Fact is, though, you
can see the range of his comic repertoire in about a week. By contrast, it's
taken almost a decade just to sample Colbert's full menu. Within a single
episode, he'll veer from deep-fried pomposity to vacillating schoolboy to weepy
narcissist. He'll pour scorn on bears, shake his fist at Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle, put the British Empire "on notice". Where Stewart plays
the comedic equivalent of a kazoo, Colbert works with a full symphony
orchestra.
The end of the Report
will leave a big hole in our weeknights. So big, in fact, that it's hard to
believe some version of "Stephen Colbert" won't make regular
appearances on the new Late Night. We'll
find out next year.
The real legacy of late-night satire won't be told in 2015, but during the next Presidential election, and the one after that. On
the plus side, Stewart and Colbert continue to be wildly popular among younger
viewers (and a quite a few older ones too), and their shows have become major
sources of news for whole segments of the voting population. Viewers who
watched Colbert's comedic take on campaign finance laws were shown to be
objectively better informed on that critical issue than viewers of Fox, CNN or
any other major outlet. A 2007 study
found regular viewers of Stewart's and Colbert's show to be better informed on
all issues than viewers of the PBS
Newshour (surprising) and Bill O'Reilly (not surprising).
Trouble is, none of this is necessarily translating into
greater voter involvement. Both Comedy Central shows extensively covered the
2014 midterms, but turnout was dismal, the worst in 72 years. So the question
becomes: is making the news funny an incentive to participate in the political process—or a substitute for
it?
©
2014 Nicholas Nicastro
No comments:
Post a Comment