Go to Ask.com


enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
George Carlin
by Ted Burke
It's rather too easy to exaggerate the virtues of a renegade celebrity when they finally pass on and glide into whatever ethereal after-existence one conspires to imagine, citing some usually short lived early insights into the layers of falseness and bad faith that sap us of a our virtues , and turning a blind eye and a deaf ear when our late hypothetical rebel went sour, became hackneyed, had exhausted all freshness of approach. We don't want our iconic iconoclasts to to lose their reputation as relevant sayers of truth. The irony, of course, is that our collective mourning and remembrance wraps the departed with the same kind of wrap of cliche and truisms the truth teller sought to dispel; strange, wouldn't it seem, that the efforts of a Twain, a Thompson, a Richard Pryor or a Bill Hicks did nothing really to bring their generations to clarity and purpose , but only gave the old apologies a new coat of paint?

That's the dilemma when one sets themselves up as a a speaker of truth to power, as it were; in print one risks the charge of seeming shrill and paranoid, effectively marginalizing any effect one might have had on the discourse,and for the comedian, the risk is that one is charged with the worst crime of all, of not being funny. The late George Carlin, of course, never had a problem of being funny. At various times a social critic, a Menckenesque student of the innate ambiguities of language, a rather superb commentator and satirist specializing in the dialectic of unrealistic expectation meeting concrete and inevitable fact, Carlin caused laughter, nervous coughing, debates, and did, to some extent, provoke discussions after his comedy albums were played or his many HBO specials were finished, disagreements above and beyond the "funny bits" and laugh lines and landing on the subject near to Carlin's lovingly cynical heart, the collective delusions Americans rely on to buffer themselves against the stressed out and crushing banality of their (our) existence. His was the spot light where Lenny Bruce, Mencken and Thorsten Veblen shook hands and polished the best insights into hard , fast and lacerating lines, given with a delivery could, to steal a line from Norman Mailer, boil the fat from a cabdriver's neck.

One can maintain, no doubt, that Carlin was straining in the last ten years or so, that he was too acerbic at last, too acidic and joyless with the sharp stick he jabbed into the side of the obese culture he was attracted to as much as repulsed by. Perhaps; what I remember is that Carlin was a consistent cynic ever since he dropped his TV-friendly routines and brought some measure of refreshing independence to the shows on which he was a guest. Yes, I know, his criticism, his act, his jibes, his jeremiads were all an act, right. Yes, but that didn't make him a phony, and one had to admire Carlin's skill at remaining an effective entertaining for all the corrosive views he brought to the table. In a time when many a showbiz contrarian is soon revealed as disposable and ill-fitted for a long career, Carlin remembered what he was, at bottom, he remembered what made his skewed disposition marketable; he was an entertainer, a comedian. He could make you laugh, and that is a gift we see too little in our lives.
Re: George Carlin
by IUCaliMom
You said a mouthful, brother! Amen to ALL of that.
Re: George Carlin
by genedio

Was he straining in the last ten years, or was he finally viewing the whole picture--the whole panorama of American life. After watching his 2005 HBO series (Worth Losing) I'm asking myself, was Carlin a comedian, a tragedian, or neither? He doesn't personally come across as the victim, so I don't think he deals in tragedy. (Of course, our culture could hardly tolerate a stand up tragedian, could it?). Neither are his recent observations 'funny'; they are rather, pathetic, horrifying, cynical, bitter, and hopeless...which would seem to be the antithesis of comedy. One laughs at Carlin's routine and humor because one must. This is how a comic must act today, Carlin seems to be saying, if he would speak truth to power...

From your article: [Carlin] defended the material, insisting that his comedy had always been driven by an intolerance for the shortcomings of humanity and society.

“Scratch any cynic,” he said, “and you’ll find a disappointed idealist.”

I think Carlin was sui generis. He wasn't a straight comic. He was put here to remind us of stuff we had forgotten.

Re: George Carlin
by Ted Burke
Carlin's routines became more cynical and coarser as he got older, and that isn't surprising; that he abandoned the search for a definitive punchline to make all his grousing and cynicism palatable came , in fact, as a relief. One would have cringed if he maintained the zonked out Everyman that was his trademark. I'd agree with you that he pretty much ran his course by the time the 2000s started, and he couldn't gain a vantage in a post-9/11 world; the worst had already happened and now the seer had nothing to do once the greed, avarice, stupidity and meaness of Western Civilization was wounded in the most horrible way. He seemed reduced to saying "I told you so".
I think you nailed itat the end
by genedio

but at the same time, you must admit--or to let me rephrase that; it seems to me from a perusal of his material on Youtube and also from what the author of this Slate article argued--that Carlin's horizons expanded as he got older. As he stopped being the "zonked-out Everyman" and grew up to consider the 'New Reality' of what our nation had become, he in turn perforce became more cynical. I am not sure coarser, as his language had always been peppered with 4-letter words since the 1960s, and the natural tendency would be to use more of them as time went on and their effectiveness waned. Certainly, Carlin was angry, and had to adopt the angry pose of the social commentator; his true progenitor was Swift--as are so many other comedians in the English language.

You say, "he pretty much ran his course by the time the 2000s started, and he couldn't gain a vantage in a post-9/11 world."

I'm curious to know who (among comedians) you think did gain a vantage on the post 9-11 world. Not because I disagree with you, but because you probably know more. I thought your top post was truly insightful.

Re: I think you nailed itat the end
by Ted Burke
I don;t think anyone has the "post 9-11" vantage yet. Bill Mahr is the closest I can think of, since his anger goes the deepest of his generation and is the best articulated of the bunch. He is the cross between Twain and Mencken and has an undying, unflagging hatred of the stupidity of those in power regardless of their ostensible political philosophy and the harm they create blindly pushing their expedient ends.What seperates him from the routine nihilist is his belief in social justice and an open society; this is marks him differently than , say, Larry Miller, a comedian I enjoyed until I heard him on Mahr's show basically declare that the terrorists are coming back to kill us again and that we'd better be prepared to kill them first. Mahr, in terms of the new realism, has a harder road as comedian; to express cynicism and outrage while being in favor of something. He certainly knows that being a critic without a articulatable alternative to the way things are is as inauthentic as a blues album by a boy band. He has the political intelligence Dennis Miller wishes he had.
Assume you meant Maher, not "Mahr"
by genedio

and I agree about his anger going deeper. I recall that he was fired from his Politically Incorrect show because he claimed the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards--a readily arguable position in most normal situations. But we were not in a normal situation. Nevertheless, as with Carlin, this showed his courage. Carlin, however, was so cynical ("Fuck Hope") that the terrorist's courage wouldn't even be an issue. Carlin really thought we all were apes and savages with a very thin veneer of civilization. He was always trying to scratch off this veneer, and perusing the HBO performances, his loudest applause came with his simulating masturbation or fucking. Maybe this comes with the stand-up territory. Maher's venue is quite different, and you can't really compare a stand-up comic who creates and performs his own act with a show host. I admit I haven't caught any of recent stuff. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to specific performances?

I would rather give the honors to Jon Stewart, who similarly pierces the pretentions so many continue to follow, and who rarely feels the need to resort to profanity, but whose act can be likened to a stand-up with props. Even so, he has a gaggle of writers who help create his act.

In terms of stand-up, I'm really at a loss.

View as RSS news feed in XML