This is a great thing to think about, especially for those of us who started in comedy in the 1990s, when there was a great deal of comedy that "went there." I guess where I netted out on this, was there were three reasons to delve into the language of cruelty, sexism, extreme profanity or bigotry, and they were as follows 1) they got attention, and raised the stakes. higher stakes= bigger laughs 2) There was a sense that you could use that language in the name of satire and 3) There was a perception that artists took risks.
Using those themes, at that time, WAS a real risk, it was a departure from the TV friendly pop culture landscape at the time. It sounds crazy now, but when I was a kid, I was genuinely SHOCKED to hear the word "fuck" on a Guns and Roses album. There wasn't an Internet that had democratized adult content yet.
Plus, to tread on that taboo ground, you'd make the audience nervous, and at least in the 1990s, there was a sense that if you were able to bring your message back to one of sanity, or make a larger satirical point, it almost felt like you'd done a magic trick, and audiences, at least back then, seemed to appreciate being taken out of their comfort zone, provided they were returned to it with the catharsis of a laugh, especially a knowing laugh, that the comedy was operating on a higher level. The idea with the satire angle, which was so seductive, and ( I saw that another commenter here mention Archie Bunker,) was that by personifying bad behavior, one could make it ridiculous, and completely devastate the source of the bigotry though mockery. There was a sense that a courageous humorist would lay it plain, show you what it was, say the words and shock you, but use that shock in the service of making a larger point. This is the Blazing Saddles/Steve Dallas/Slap Shot model, which I think many humorists delighted in, as it allowed them to raise the stakes, get attention, and feel bold, while doing it behind the moral armor of satire. But here's the thing- over time, in my experience, despite noble intentions, I found that this satirical trope didn't work as well as the humorists who employed it had hoped. It worked with people who already agreed with the ideas presented, but over and over and over again, the intended target just didn't get it, and certainly didn't feel chastened by it. Worse, they delighted in it. Bigots loved Archie Bunker, frat boys loved Steve Dallas, violent hockey players and sports fans adored Slap Shot, racist cops loved Cartman's "Respect Mah authority." Bigots love to bemoan the fact that "we couldn't make Blazing Saddles today" as though the point behind the racial slurs in that film were to show off about how we could delightfully say the N word and laugh about it, instead of using it to put a face on the deep rot of racism. Add the fact that humorists who came of age in the 1990s went on to employ these satirical tactics against George W Bush and Donald Trump, only to see their barbs appeal only to those who already agreed with them, and completely fail to change anyone's entrenched views.
Now, "idiots not getting it" is a cowardly reason to stop making satirical art or comedy, but I will say it makes it a hell of a lot riskier to do it in front of a live audience, particularly while improvising. Personally, it makes it lot harder for me to put an audience through something like that, if I'm not convinced that it also has the power to change minds, which increasingly, I'm not sure that it does. One of the reasons that Dave Chappelle famously walked off his show was this very balance- he felt like someone was giving him "the wrong kind of laugh." And ultimately, as thrilling as it was to "be bad", to use the language of hate to guide people to the light, if your satire not only isn't working, but worse, empowering the very target you intended to ridicule, than maybe you're not doing it as well as you thought you were. Maybe you're just trying to have your cake and eat it too.
I've been thinking a lot about this lately and some things are especially emphasised in the UK context. Social class is obviously the main way Brits enjoy dividing ourselves up. Unfortunately the creative industries in the UK are dominated by those with immense generational wealth privilege, privately educated, usually white & from South East England. While only 7% of UK population is went to a paid private school, they represent 60% of people working in the performing arts. They're the ones that can afford to train at a drama school, live and work in London without a well-paid job, bankrolled by parents while they build their creative career, or can afford to set up an improv business without risking destitution.
Working class, or even lower-middle-class (we have a thousand labels, keep up) performers are extremely rare and often forced out by financial need or feeling excluded. This makes for very homogenous leadership at improv theatres and lots of self-reinforced group think.
On the surface should be good for improvising right? Everyone on the same page. Well yes, except it excludes 93% of your potential audience and performers. It means performers are inevitably punching down in scenes. Those that recognise and want to avoid down are left with drawing from extremely narrow life experiences or cliched wordplay & leaning on sexual content - they grew up in comfort, went to university or drama school, then got by on a mix of paid and unpaid acting work or teaching improv. I've lost count of how many times a scene are set in auditions, are set in a generic white collar office setting or some tv parody world, regional accents are used as a joke in themselves or as a shorthand for being less intelligent. These haven't really gone away here - It's very dispiriting when you come from outside that clique. Even anecdotally this is visible: the two main London theatres are located in some of London's most disadvantaged/poor/non-white boroughs and yet are extraordinarily un-diverse on-stage.
Off stage, this manifests in gatekeeping, both intentional and unintentional misuses of power, high school level 'You can't sit here' bullying, resistance & hostility to hierarchy being challenged. More dangerously, leaders who fail to understand and accommodate the needs of those from different ethnic or social-economic backgrounds, with specific health conditions or any experience outside the echo chamber can and have caused real harm.
All the while those same leaders get confused by why audiences don't want to see their shows, why their 'art' isn't the most popular thing on earth, or cannot recognise that their inexperience running businesses is inseparable from the lack of adversity they've faced day-to-day in society. Interestingly while 60% of performing arts workers are from privileged backgrounds, they represent only 40% of industry award winners. It's almost as if their privilege outstrips their talent, but I couldn't possibly say.
All to say, inclusivity is the beginning and a process towards a more diverse community and simply better shows that audiences can connect with.
That's my take on why the story of most improv 'communities' start to collapse at a certain growth stage anyway. IS THAT TOO HEAVY? CAN WE NOT JUST FOCUS ON GROUP OPENINGS WITH EVERYONE PLAYING CHICKENS WITH BAGPIPES?
Hahahah yes, the classic chicken and bagpipes go-to!
Thanks for your response. My own essay is too slapdash to get to these many topics. I meant to discuss "meanness" but I ended up getting into diversity, which now that I think about it should be a separate essay.
Everything you're saying seems to apply in the US also. In Los Angeles where I live there are lots and lots of actors/writers who come from families that bankroll their expenses while they pursue creative careers. But many of them are actually really good and then do work really hard. While it doesn't feel fair that the rich dominate the arts, it doesn't always mean they're bad at it.
You didn't say the privileged were bad, I think you're just acknowledging the unfairness of privlege. Which is good to acknowledge! I truly never even THOUGHT about how non-diverse the improv scene was when I started. Literally did not occur to me. To at least be aware of it is a step forward.
Yes agree, all individuals are part of a system. Some of them are there on merit, some are not, some have benefitted from privilege but are still excellent at what they do, most people carry round multiple advantages and disadvantages. But it serves no-one to ignore what imbalances are there and have an impact on what’s on stage, who is the subject of the comedy & in what ways can/should comedy challenge the status quo - an unfair system is unfair for everyone. Anyway, may well be an essay incoming on this on my side too, which just what we need, more white men wading in.
Something that I was taught, in stand up anyway, is that something is funny because it is definitely true or definitely *not* true. I’ve either made sure my audience knows that definitely think a thing to be true or not when I say it, and can play and take risks based on successfully building the context.
In that way, the meanness can sound mean but also be received ironically well. Like how my wife and I shit talk each other as a love language. Because we know we dont mean it. Unless it feels too real and we have a nice long talk about how Im not mentioning weight and so she also should not.
This comment is really getting away from me but I enjoy the improv perspective you’re sharing in this essay and I agree that the risk or danger element shouldn’t be steered clear away from altogether but I dont pretend to have any idea on how to do it successfully.
Early in my improv journey, I was in a tricky scene. You subtly pointed out the potential issue and I asked if we should explore risky themes if they arise. You wisely responded that improv offers endless possibilities, so why make a choice that you're aware could be offensive? I'm paraphrasing here to the best of my recollection but this advice really stuck with me and I now share it with new improvisers if a similar issue comes up. We have infinite choices; let's choose those that lead to richer, more playable scenes, rather than relying on edginess for cheap laughs. (Insert dick joke here)
I appreciate being cited as wise, but I wish I was able to communicate that we should tackle risky themes when the moment is right. That's something I want to get better at teaching - avoiding doing a "risky" theme for the "wrong" reason, but also doing it when it's the right time.
Yeah it's an interesting one and you probably made that point to be fair about not avoiding risky totally, it was about 4 years ago 🤯 time moves fast.
I think I found the note about having loads of possible choices helpful, specifically in the early days because it removed the fear that I would inevitably have to go into territory I didn't feel skilled or knowledgeable enough to tackle and be stuck there. Now, if something risky comes up, I'm more comfortable dancing with it a bit, knowing that we can always make other moves, especially if I'm dancing with a scene partner who I trust won't lead us into trouble 😂
Really interesting, thought provoking piece, thanks! Though I do have to say I detest the “punching up/down” idea; it rests on a premise that we all live on a perfect unitary plane where it’s possible at any moment to determine who has the right to punch whom. But the world isn’t nearly as neat and simple - and you should probably not get in the habit of punching anyone, period.
One instruction from your book has always stuck with me though, and I think about it a lot when edgy or sensitive topics come up: “avoid common wisdom”. If you want to have characters who are mean to each other or evince somewhat ugly personality traits, make something about them unexpected. It makes the meanness go down easier. As examples, think of the Chapelle’s Show sketch with the blind guy. Or, and this is more of a deep cut, an old SNL sketch called Skinheads in Maine, where these old, cable knit sweater wearing pipe smoking Mainers with thick accents talked about fishing and nor’easters…and every now and then would say something terrible (before going back to talking about fishing again).
Are Mainers or fishermen powerful or privileged? Not necessarily. But the bit worked (or it did in my opinion) because the idea was specific, unexpected, and novel - not common wisdom. I try to steer clear of sensitive topics as a rule (just safer that way) and will only even consider them if I can legitimately think, “I have a unique and surprising spin on this topic”.
It's not mean; it's straight-up harm and the lack of knowledge to care for humanity. Comedy/improv gets labeled a boys club... not just any boys club...but cis white boy. Even with Black men in the club, they are gatekeepers of the art form because, it was a free place to air out all the hurt and hate stored up inside without any accountability. Under the vail of "humor and fun." In my opinion, comedy isn't more diverse now. It's more humane, it has less of a stone heart.
It's good to see how much you acknowledge that craving for junk and are now speaking up about it. I've had a improv coach offer the trick of punching up and not down. Gracefully getting a point across without crossing over into offensive territory. It's a muscle that needs flexed often. We become what we consume, whatever it is, it will show up in your character sooner or later.
I love comedy and improv, but have never had any type of professional or amateur involvement in the industry. That said, I absolutely LOVE reading posts like this that seek nuance and answers that are not hot takes or strictly black or white or really even answers at all. It's basically starting a discussion. It's the type of thing that makes me be a little more thoughtful about the comedy I consume (and a bit more hopeful for real dialogue online.) Thanks, Will!
I think you have to take the fear away. It’s like when a bad thing happens and comedians don’t know when it’s “ok” to make jokes about it. The first ones are always testing the audience reaction, “oh is it too soon?”, they might ask.
I think it’s time to test the water. Archie Bunker was a hated character in a TV series in the 70s but what that character did was help create a discussion. But that takes bravery more than correctness. No one is brave anymore, much. Can we be brave, bold and wise at the same time? It’s possible.
This is a great thing to think about, especially for those of us who started in comedy in the 1990s, when there was a great deal of comedy that "went there." I guess where I netted out on this, was there were three reasons to delve into the language of cruelty, sexism, extreme profanity or bigotry, and they were as follows 1) they got attention, and raised the stakes. higher stakes= bigger laughs 2) There was a sense that you could use that language in the name of satire and 3) There was a perception that artists took risks.
Using those themes, at that time, WAS a real risk, it was a departure from the TV friendly pop culture landscape at the time. It sounds crazy now, but when I was a kid, I was genuinely SHOCKED to hear the word "fuck" on a Guns and Roses album. There wasn't an Internet that had democratized adult content yet.
Plus, to tread on that taboo ground, you'd make the audience nervous, and at least in the 1990s, there was a sense that if you were able to bring your message back to one of sanity, or make a larger satirical point, it almost felt like you'd done a magic trick, and audiences, at least back then, seemed to appreciate being taken out of their comfort zone, provided they were returned to it with the catharsis of a laugh, especially a knowing laugh, that the comedy was operating on a higher level. The idea with the satire angle, which was so seductive, and ( I saw that another commenter here mention Archie Bunker,) was that by personifying bad behavior, one could make it ridiculous, and completely devastate the source of the bigotry though mockery. There was a sense that a courageous humorist would lay it plain, show you what it was, say the words and shock you, but use that shock in the service of making a larger point. This is the Blazing Saddles/Steve Dallas/Slap Shot model, which I think many humorists delighted in, as it allowed them to raise the stakes, get attention, and feel bold, while doing it behind the moral armor of satire. But here's the thing- over time, in my experience, despite noble intentions, I found that this satirical trope didn't work as well as the humorists who employed it had hoped. It worked with people who already agreed with the ideas presented, but over and over and over again, the intended target just didn't get it, and certainly didn't feel chastened by it. Worse, they delighted in it. Bigots loved Archie Bunker, frat boys loved Steve Dallas, violent hockey players and sports fans adored Slap Shot, racist cops loved Cartman's "Respect Mah authority." Bigots love to bemoan the fact that "we couldn't make Blazing Saddles today" as though the point behind the racial slurs in that film were to show off about how we could delightfully say the N word and laugh about it, instead of using it to put a face on the deep rot of racism. Add the fact that humorists who came of age in the 1990s went on to employ these satirical tactics against George W Bush and Donald Trump, only to see their barbs appeal only to those who already agreed with them, and completely fail to change anyone's entrenched views.
Now, "idiots not getting it" is a cowardly reason to stop making satirical art or comedy, but I will say it makes it a hell of a lot riskier to do it in front of a live audience, particularly while improvising. Personally, it makes it lot harder for me to put an audience through something like that, if I'm not convinced that it also has the power to change minds, which increasingly, I'm not sure that it does. One of the reasons that Dave Chappelle famously walked off his show was this very balance- he felt like someone was giving him "the wrong kind of laugh." And ultimately, as thrilling as it was to "be bad", to use the language of hate to guide people to the light, if your satire not only isn't working, but worse, empowering the very target you intended to ridicule, than maybe you're not doing it as well as you thought you were. Maybe you're just trying to have your cake and eat it too.
This is a deft summary of how things have evolved. Great point about the irony of things like bigots loving Archie bunker.
Really interesting, thanks Will,
I've been thinking a lot about this lately and some things are especially emphasised in the UK context. Social class is obviously the main way Brits enjoy dividing ourselves up. Unfortunately the creative industries in the UK are dominated by those with immense generational wealth privilege, privately educated, usually white & from South East England. While only 7% of UK population is went to a paid private school, they represent 60% of people working in the performing arts. They're the ones that can afford to train at a drama school, live and work in London without a well-paid job, bankrolled by parents while they build their creative career, or can afford to set up an improv business without risking destitution.
Working class, or even lower-middle-class (we have a thousand labels, keep up) performers are extremely rare and often forced out by financial need or feeling excluded. This makes for very homogenous leadership at improv theatres and lots of self-reinforced group think.
On the surface should be good for improvising right? Everyone on the same page. Well yes, except it excludes 93% of your potential audience and performers. It means performers are inevitably punching down in scenes. Those that recognise and want to avoid down are left with drawing from extremely narrow life experiences or cliched wordplay & leaning on sexual content - they grew up in comfort, went to university or drama school, then got by on a mix of paid and unpaid acting work or teaching improv. I've lost count of how many times a scene are set in auditions, are set in a generic white collar office setting or some tv parody world, regional accents are used as a joke in themselves or as a shorthand for being less intelligent. These haven't really gone away here - It's very dispiriting when you come from outside that clique. Even anecdotally this is visible: the two main London theatres are located in some of London's most disadvantaged/poor/non-white boroughs and yet are extraordinarily un-diverse on-stage.
Off stage, this manifests in gatekeeping, both intentional and unintentional misuses of power, high school level 'You can't sit here' bullying, resistance & hostility to hierarchy being challenged. More dangerously, leaders who fail to understand and accommodate the needs of those from different ethnic or social-economic backgrounds, with specific health conditions or any experience outside the echo chamber can and have caused real harm.
All the while those same leaders get confused by why audiences don't want to see their shows, why their 'art' isn't the most popular thing on earth, or cannot recognise that their inexperience running businesses is inseparable from the lack of adversity they've faced day-to-day in society. Interestingly while 60% of performing arts workers are from privileged backgrounds, they represent only 40% of industry award winners. It's almost as if their privilege outstrips their talent, but I couldn't possibly say.
All to say, inclusivity is the beginning and a process towards a more diverse community and simply better shows that audiences can connect with.
That's my take on why the story of most improv 'communities' start to collapse at a certain growth stage anyway. IS THAT TOO HEAVY? CAN WE NOT JUST FOCUS ON GROUP OPENINGS WITH EVERYONE PLAYING CHICKENS WITH BAGPIPES?
Hahahah yes, the classic chicken and bagpipes go-to!
Thanks for your response. My own essay is too slapdash to get to these many topics. I meant to discuss "meanness" but I ended up getting into diversity, which now that I think about it should be a separate essay.
Everything you're saying seems to apply in the US also. In Los Angeles where I live there are lots and lots of actors/writers who come from families that bankroll their expenses while they pursue creative careers. But many of them are actually really good and then do work really hard. While it doesn't feel fair that the rich dominate the arts, it doesn't always mean they're bad at it.
You didn't say the privileged were bad, I think you're just acknowledging the unfairness of privlege. Which is good to acknowledge! I truly never even THOUGHT about how non-diverse the improv scene was when I started. Literally did not occur to me. To at least be aware of it is a step forward.
Always appreciate your thoughts on these things.
Yes agree, all individuals are part of a system. Some of them are there on merit, some are not, some have benefitted from privilege but are still excellent at what they do, most people carry round multiple advantages and disadvantages. But it serves no-one to ignore what imbalances are there and have an impact on what’s on stage, who is the subject of the comedy & in what ways can/should comedy challenge the status quo - an unfair system is unfair for everyone. Anyway, may well be an essay incoming on this on my side too, which just what we need, more white men wading in.
Something that I was taught, in stand up anyway, is that something is funny because it is definitely true or definitely *not* true. I’ve either made sure my audience knows that definitely think a thing to be true or not when I say it, and can play and take risks based on successfully building the context.
In that way, the meanness can sound mean but also be received ironically well. Like how my wife and I shit talk each other as a love language. Because we know we dont mean it. Unless it feels too real and we have a nice long talk about how Im not mentioning weight and so she also should not.
This comment is really getting away from me but I enjoy the improv perspective you’re sharing in this essay and I agree that the risk or danger element shouldn’t be steered clear away from altogether but I dont pretend to have any idea on how to do it successfully.
Early in my improv journey, I was in a tricky scene. You subtly pointed out the potential issue and I asked if we should explore risky themes if they arise. You wisely responded that improv offers endless possibilities, so why make a choice that you're aware could be offensive? I'm paraphrasing here to the best of my recollection but this advice really stuck with me and I now share it with new improvisers if a similar issue comes up. We have infinite choices; let's choose those that lead to richer, more playable scenes, rather than relying on edginess for cheap laughs. (Insert dick joke here)
I appreciate being cited as wise, but I wish I was able to communicate that we should tackle risky themes when the moment is right. That's something I want to get better at teaching - avoiding doing a "risky" theme for the "wrong" reason, but also doing it when it's the right time.
Yeah it's an interesting one and you probably made that point to be fair about not avoiding risky totally, it was about 4 years ago 🤯 time moves fast.
I think I found the note about having loads of possible choices helpful, specifically in the early days because it removed the fear that I would inevitably have to go into territory I didn't feel skilled or knowledgeable enough to tackle and be stuck there. Now, if something risky comes up, I'm more comfortable dancing with it a bit, knowing that we can always make other moves, especially if I'm dancing with a scene partner who I trust won't lead us into trouble 😂
Really interesting, thought provoking piece, thanks! Though I do have to say I detest the “punching up/down” idea; it rests on a premise that we all live on a perfect unitary plane where it’s possible at any moment to determine who has the right to punch whom. But the world isn’t nearly as neat and simple - and you should probably not get in the habit of punching anyone, period.
One instruction from your book has always stuck with me though, and I think about it a lot when edgy or sensitive topics come up: “avoid common wisdom”. If you want to have characters who are mean to each other or evince somewhat ugly personality traits, make something about them unexpected. It makes the meanness go down easier. As examples, think of the Chapelle’s Show sketch with the blind guy. Or, and this is more of a deep cut, an old SNL sketch called Skinheads in Maine, where these old, cable knit sweater wearing pipe smoking Mainers with thick accents talked about fishing and nor’easters…and every now and then would say something terrible (before going back to talking about fishing again).
Are Mainers or fishermen powerful or privileged? Not necessarily. But the bit worked (or it did in my opinion) because the idea was specific, unexpected, and novel - not common wisdom. I try to steer clear of sensitive topics as a rule (just safer that way) and will only even consider them if I can legitimately think, “I have a unique and surprising spin on this topic”.
It's not mean; it's straight-up harm and the lack of knowledge to care for humanity. Comedy/improv gets labeled a boys club... not just any boys club...but cis white boy. Even with Black men in the club, they are gatekeepers of the art form because, it was a free place to air out all the hurt and hate stored up inside without any accountability. Under the vail of "humor and fun." In my opinion, comedy isn't more diverse now. It's more humane, it has less of a stone heart.
It's good to see how much you acknowledge that craving for junk and are now speaking up about it. I've had a improv coach offer the trick of punching up and not down. Gracefully getting a point across without crossing over into offensive territory. It's a muscle that needs flexed often. We become what we consume, whatever it is, it will show up in your character sooner or later.
Interesting, but have we considered blaming the woke mob?
Let’s do it!
I love comedy and improv, but have never had any type of professional or amateur involvement in the industry. That said, I absolutely LOVE reading posts like this that seek nuance and answers that are not hot takes or strictly black or white or really even answers at all. It's basically starting a discussion. It's the type of thing that makes me be a little more thoughtful about the comedy I consume (and a bit more hopeful for real dialogue online.) Thanks, Will!
I think you have to take the fear away. It’s like when a bad thing happens and comedians don’t know when it’s “ok” to make jokes about it. The first ones are always testing the audience reaction, “oh is it too soon?”, they might ask.
I think it’s time to test the water. Archie Bunker was a hated character in a TV series in the 70s but what that character did was help create a discussion. But that takes bravery more than correctness. No one is brave anymore, much. Can we be brave, bold and wise at the same time? It’s possible.