The Real Colbert Will Triumph on Late Night

[babylonsister]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/04/the-real-colbert-will-triumph.html?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook&mbid=social_facebook

April 11, 2014
The Real Colbert Will Triumph on Late Night
Posted by Ian Crouch



snip//

Colbert’s O’Reilly-Limbaugh creation has been reliably hilarious and insightful since the “The Colbert Report” débuted, in 2005. The show’s red-white-and-blue bald-eagle imagery; its hooting, chanting crowds; and the character’s own absurd self-regard have helped take the air out of Fox News, and out of the entire genre of televised political punditry. Thanks to various electioneering stunts, Colbert has made vital observations about the American political system, particularly about the sordid role that money plays within it. “The Colbert Report” and the “Daily Show,” where Colbert perfected his schtick, have changed the way that young liberals of a certain class think and talk about civic culture. And “Colbert” has been funny for nearly ten years. Fans of the show and its indomitable host (only now defeated by the real-life lure of late-night respectability) have good reason to mourn.

But “Colbert” hasn’t been performance art; Colbert has not tried to be Andy Kaufman—nor, in this particular age of sharing, could he have hoped to be. In interviews since “The Colbert Report” launched, he has been forthright about his personal life, and about the particular aims of his comedy. When Terry Gross asked him, in 2012, why he had published the faux-commentary book “America Again: Re-Becoming the Greatness We Never Weren’t,” Colbert explained, “My character is based on news punditry, the masters of opinion in cable news, and they all have books.” The book, then, existed as a kind of stunt. But what he didn’t say, and didn’t need to, was that he had been paid to write a book because people in real life would buy it. This situation was at once rather complicated and completely clear: everyone on television has a book, but was Colbert really someone on television? Also in 2012, Colbert spoke to David Gregory on “Meet the Press,” and again went through the me-and-him routine. “Don’t you yank my chain around. I’m not your puppet to dance on your string, David Gregory,” he said. But, near the end of the interview, Colbert couldn’t help sounding thoughtful. When Gregory asked him about the 2012 Presidential election, and whether anything meaningful separated Barack Obama from Mitt Romney, he said, “There’s got to be a difference between these two men, or else we’re all part of a cruel, cruel joke.”

Still, there has been always been a stir over the years when the integrity of the Colbert persona has appeared to be penetrated—as in 2011, when Al Gore referred to Colbert’s “character” during an interview, or, in a touching moment last year, when Colbert spoke about the death of his mother on the air. In a way, we’ve been more eager than Colbert himself to protect his conservative-host persona, not by believing explicitly in the fictional construct of the show, but by agreeing instead to act like we believe it.

It’s a testament to Colbert’s immense gifts as a performer that the character has remained fresh. But, as Colbert himself has gotten more famous, his creation has suffered. In some ways, this has created a more interesting persona, what Charles McGrath, in the New York Times Magazine, identified as a third Colbert—some hybrid of the fake and the real. But it has also muddled the meaning and purpose of the character. The clueless pundit Stephen Colbert had his finest moment all the way back in 2006, when he eviscerated George W. Bush with false praise during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. (After expounding on a metaphor comparing the Bush Presidency to the movie “Rocky,” Colbert concluded, “It is the heartwarming story of a man who is repeatedly punched in the face.”) He stayed so firmly in character that he even made Antonin Scalia laugh.

Four years later, at another Washington engagement, Colbert once again arrived in character to speak to politicians. After he had become a migrant farm worker for a day in a segment on his show, Colbert was given five minutes to speak in front of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and Border Security. To the obvious discomfort of the committee members, he offered his usual absurdist commentary: “Now we all know there is a long tradition of great nations importing foreign workers to do their farm work. After all, it was the ancient Israelites who built the first food pyramids.” He ended by saying, “I yield the balance of my time. U.S.A., number one.”

snip//

In a perfect comedic world, we would have only known the Stephen Colbert character for the past nine years—and the real man would simply disappear when we didn’t see him, as we once imagined was true of our first-grade teachers. (The paragon in this respect is, of all people, David Letterman. For all the talk of Colbert’s mythology, it is Letterman who, despite more than thirty years on television, has remained, in many ways, unknowable.) But that’s asking too much. As Jon Stewart pointed out on Thursday, Colbert has given up a lot to play the character as strenuously as he has. It’s unlikely that CBS would have given Colbert the job if he’d been entirely persuasive as a political ideologue; by showing the cracks in the character, he has reminded us of his ability as an actor and a comedian. The important question, then, isn’t what the real Stephen Colbert is like, but what character he’ll play next. Some things are unlikely to change: his enthusiasm and showmanship, his gifts as a physical comedian, his knowing expressions of egotism—these are the tools of a talk-show host, fake or not.

[seabeyond]

1. i think so too. a lot of people are selling him short. i will miss the old though. he was good.

but i am curious about the real

[randome]

2. I agree. He is smart enough to know exactly what he is doing by accepting the Late Show.

It's possible he sees himself as a standard bearer of Progressive cause and he may view the Late Show as a way to expand that.

I can think of no one better qualified to do that. He is a genius. And that comes from someone who does not easily see heroes.

4.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[rickford66]

3. I bet his first guest will be Bill'O

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Will the Good Colbert be as entertaining as Evil Colbert?

It will be fun to find out.

[etherealtruth]

5. He is smart and he is funny

I am a big fan of much of what he has done.

I hope he succeeds

[Cha]

6. We owe Stephen Colbert so much for his "taking the air out of fox news" and Jon Stewart too..

now it's time for Colbert to show us what else he's got.. when he's the new host of Late Night! You so need to be able to talk to people, be funny, and keep everyone entertained for an hour and a half 5 nights a week!

I saw this Seriously stupid question from David Gregory in the article..

"When Gregory asked him about the 2012 Presidential election, and whether anything meaningful separated Barack Obama from Mitt Romney, he said, “There’s got to be a difference between these two men, or else we’re all part of a cruel, cruel joke.”

JHC.. ya think!