Seth Be Not Proud

I’m not necessarily a huge Seth MacFarlane fan; it’s easy to feel indignant about a guy who’s made a gazillion dollars by essentially writing Simpsons fan fiction.  So I was expecting not to be impressed by his work as the Oscars host.  Okay, fine: I was looking forward to not being impressed by his work as the Oscars host.  I’m not proud of it, but there it is.  I was eager to get my reserves of Schadenfreude topped off, basically.

And I wasn’t too impressed by his work, but not for the reasons you’d think.  I thought his comedy during the telecast was carefully and intricately crafted, attentively honed, and expertly delivered.  The only problem with most of it was that it wasn’t funny, but then most comedy is both unfunny and poorly crafted, so at least he was getting something right.  I was also surprised – watching it after the reviews had started coming in – that I didn’t even find most of it to be that sexist.In context, the much-reviled “We Saw Your Boobs” number, for instance, was constructed not to find humor in the fact that women take off their shirts in the movies, but in the idea of the Oscars, a celebration of cinematic accomplishment, being hosted by someone so boorish and clueless that he would build an elaborate musical number around women taking off their shirts in movies.  The fact that most of these movies were serious, even grueling pieces of art that don't eroticize their subjects thus underlines that cluelessness.  I knew ahead of time that was ostensibly the premise of the number and I went in expecting that framing device just to be a flimsy excuse for leering jokes about famous women’s boobies, but nope – the joke was, from beginning to end, about the crass oafishness of this Oscar host.  The bit went on way too long, obviously – it might have landed if it had been even more elaborate and abrupt in its brevity – but not knowing when to cut things off seems to be something that MacFarlane and the Oscars have in common.

So if the “Boobs” number wasn’t really about women, or boobs, then why was it still problematic?  Because it was all about Seth MacFarlane.  The entire interminable opening routine with William Shatner was all about Seth MacFarlane, Oscar host, and his performance anxieties about being the Oscar host[1].  And there was literally only one person in that room who cared about Seth MacFarlane and his performance anxieties.  (Hint: he rhymes with Beth BacFarlane.)  A comic like Kathy Griffin makes her routine all about herself because her audience cares, rabidly, about her. Seth MacFarlane doing a live, globally broadcast twenty-minute routine about himself and his legacy at the Oscars, by contrast, is the equivalent of forcing a billion people to watch your kids’ ballet recital on Youtube.  Nevertheless: complaining about the song for essentializing women requires that you ignore the entire context of the joke.Most of the lines that drew criticism were similarly defanged by context, by MacFarlane’s design.  The joke about Quvenzhané Wallis wasn’t about her sexuality; it was about George Clooney, and it was about arithmetic, and it wasn’t that funny, but it was a pretty standard-issue movie-star gag.  The joke about Rihanna and Chris Brown wasn’t endorsing or trivializing domestic violence; it was a familiar ripped-from-the-headlines ba-dump-bum punchline and it wasn’t that funny but anything that’s offensive about it can pretty much be pinned on Chris Brown.  The bit where MacFarlane mixed up Denzel Washington with Eddie Murphy was, again, about the pretended unenlightened cluelessness of Oscar host Seth MacFarlane, and it wasn’t that funny, but… you get the idea.

I thought his joke about Zero Dark Thirty ("The film was a triumph and also a celebration of every woman's innate ability to never ever let anything go") was particularly interesting because it got reprinted a lot as an example of the show’s insensitivity to women.  On paper that line is particularly irksome in its reductivity: antediluvian Borscht-belt stuff about the female's predictably unstable temperament.  But in MacFarlane’s deft delivery it’s something else: as he puts it out there, his eyes widening in weary frustration, he fleetingly embodies a character who’s so preoccupied with his own troubled romantic relationships, and so convinced of his blamelessness in those troubles, that it subsumes everything else, even globally coordinated Seal Team Six operations.  For the duration of that joke, he is that guy, and that guy's blinkered worldview – not Those Darn Women – is what we’re meant to be laughing at.  It’s a comic technique that Steve Martin used to use a lot in his stand-up, and I actually thought MacFarlane’s construction and deployment of that particular joke was pretty masterful.

Meanwhile, the Sound of Music bit was pretty much the funniest thing I’d seen on the Oscars in a long time.

So, yeah: overall the show wasn’t great, and it wasn’t funny enough, and that thing with Mark Wahlberg and the bear was pretty awful.  But I went looking for sexism and didn’t find it – or, at least, I didn’t find any beyond all the usual piles of it that one always finds at red carpet Hollywood events.  I’m not habitually an apologist for this kind of stuff – let’s make an appointment to get together and rag on Daniel Tosh, I’d love to, anytime – but I do think comedy, well-wrought, is a vastly more intricate and complicated instrument than people credit it with being, and lifting lines from their conceptual contexts and ignoring variables like delivery and timing is typically a recipe for missing the point.


[1] All that second-guessing metacommentary and walking back of bits that MacFarlane did – “I thought we cut this joke,” “Oh no, that’s what we were afraid he was gonna do” – was also a part of this relentless self-absorbed self-awareness. It reflected an anxious lack of the courage of his convictions, which is understandable but problematic, and it kept the focus of the comedy unremittingly on him and his performance, which is just not what the rest of us were interested in.

Traumaturgy

Let me note for the record that I love dramaturgs.  I think they're little-understood and underappreciated, not unlike leeks.  My first exposure to the frank and open practice of dramaturgy occurred when I was an intern in a literary office, where the hectic stress of daily life -- arguably endemic not so much to literary management as to anything that gets done in an office -- led my superiors to coin the term "traumaturgy," which I subsequently stole and used as a title for one of my early plays, a comedy about a dramaturg, which hasn't been produced very often, because it is a play about a dramaturg.Still, point is: dramaturgs.  I dig 'em.Still, in developmental contexts there can be a tendency, I think, even among the most brilliant and insightful dramaturgs, to focus so exhaustively on the condition of the script that they lose sight of what makes for a great show.  They really are concerned, God bless 'em, with the integrity of the script, the needs of the script, what the script is doing and what it's not doing and what the script wants to be -- in that rehearsal room they are the Lorax, they speak for the text -- and occasionally it seems like that degree of loving and microscopic attention might come at the expense of how well the script functions on its feet as a play.  I say this as someone whose ass has been saved many times by the attentive intervention of dramaturgs, so I do recognize how crucial they are.  I also say it as someone who's worn the dramaturgical hat myself -- though not as often nor as credibly as the talented people I've had the good fortune to work with -- and has myself attempted to inflict unnecessary fixes on others' scripts.  It was my job to find things to give notes on, so I gave notes on everything.  We don't know a lot about her background and family, maybe fill in some of that detail here.  This scene plays great but it's a little unclear what it means in the play as a whole.  These were sensible comments there at the table, and 100% true -- I was totally earning my dramaturgical keep -- but I neglected to consider whether the eventual audience gave any kind of a shit about the character's background and family, or whether achieving greater clarity with that one scene would actually give audience members less to talk about on the way home.It kind of comes with the territory.From the playwright's perspective, it's like going to the doctor for a checkup and the doctor identifies a few things that really need attention and a few other things that really aren't going to impair your quality of life, but what's the doctor going to do, not mention these things?  She's a doctor, and it's not like the oath included a clause that said "First, ignore some stuff."  So now you're shelling out co-pays and clogging your schedule with labs and follow-ups and things really kind of would have been better if you hadn't gone to the doctor at all.  Except for those other, bigger things that would have really fucked you up if she hadn't found and fixed them.  So it's good that you went to the doctor.  Apart from these other tests and things.I guess I'm hypothesizing that looking at a play as closely as a dramaturg is supposed to is going to turn up problems that need fixing and problems that don't.  And maybe that second category consists of problems that, counterintuitively, are better left untreated.  I've gone into developmental situations with a script that was baggy and unfocused and problematic and emerged with one that was sleeker and streamlined and efficient, and in these cases I've always regretted shaving away all the weird craggy idiosyncratic bits.  I needed the play to get better, but I didn't need to make it that much better.  I needed to fix the halting, troubled, bloated guts of the thing but I didn't need to spackle and sand its every gap, didn't need to polish its outer layer to such a fine, unblemished sheen.  (You'd think I could just go back and undo the stuff I wanted to undo and keep the rest, but that's harder to do than you might think, which either means that plays are complicated organic structures of interdependent strands or that I'm not as good at rewriting as other people are.  Or both.)Taylor Mac has a great line in his brilliant recent manifesto: "I believe all plays are flawed except the extremely boring ones."  He goes on to say "So stop trying to make my play perfect," though that sounds more confrontational than I feel about the thing.  I've had a handful of nightmare experiences with notes and feedback but none of them involved directors or dramaturgs; if anything, my experiences with those creatures have been characterized by extreme sensitivity and a compulsive reiteration of the mantra "You don't have to take any of these notes if you don't want to," indicating a general awareness that the dramaturgical process is diagnostic but not prescriptive.  (It also suggests a perception that playwrights as a species are fragile, highly suggestible, and/or easily offended.  I assume they have some experiential basis for this impression.  BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T HURT!)The burden is on the playwright, obviously, to take action on those notes that will improve the play and ignore the others, but would dramaturgy at its most effective produce only the former notes and leave out the latter?  In my experience, dramaturgs routinely defer to playwrights in terms of who actually has authority over a script, but do they typically envision themselves as realtors -- showing their clients an array of options while knowing that most of them won't be right for them -- or do they personally feel that addressing each and every one of their notes would in fact result in a superior draft of the script?  I'm pretty sure that's how I felt about my notes back when I was recklessly practicing dramaturgy.  Of course, in my case, I was -- as I so often am, in so very many contexts -- wrong.In the meantime, if someone would be kind enough to dramaturg this essay, I'd appreciate it.  I know it lacks theatricality and momentum, and the main character is wildly unsympathetic.

Clark Kent, super blogger

"Well, Clark Kent is leaving the Daily Planet.  Superman is resigning his day job as a reporter and going rogue, possibly as a self-employed blogger."  -- Washington PostDear Readers,Sorry I haven't blogged in a while.  Just been so so so busy.   Been full of ideas, though.  Since I haven't had time to flesh them out as full-fledged posts, though, I decided to share them in trusty list form, because, hey, lists are teh awesome.  So enjoy: CLARK'S TOP 10 BLOG POST IDEAS.1. Don't you hate it when you're wearing one complete outfit underneath another complete outfit on top, for any of the many valid reasons people do that sort of thing, and you can't get the outfit on top, the outer outfit, to fall quite right?  Your shirt's riding up in back and there are those weird wrinkles across your thighs?  And don't get me started on how wearing two complete outfits one on top of the other gets mad stuffy, yo.  Um, hello, corporate air conditioning gods, some of us are wearing two outfits at once here, a little consideration?2.  Also, when the sleeve of your underneath outfit starts sort of peeking out from under the sleeve of your top outfit and people are like, "Clark, is that your long underwear?  It's July."  *facepalm*3.  Check out this instagram of what I made for dinner last night: chicken and onion tagine with black bean quinoa.  Clark FTW!  Yo, I can't even pronounce quinoa!  But I can cook it all right.  Just four seconds under the heat ray.  Best.  Snack.  Ever.4.  Had a kerfuffle with the gf and she came out with this one: "It just doesn't seem like anything hurts you."  Hello, since when is this a bad thing?  So then I bashed myself with a crowbar, smiling all the while.  j/k, regular people like us can't do stuff like that thing with the crowbar.5.  Used to think there wasn't anything I couldn't do.  Then, just recently, I took up knitting.  WTF.  Here's a photo of my latest scarf/potholder.  I HAVE FEWER STITCHES THAN I STARTED WITH, WHAT IS GOING ON?  *headdesk*  *deskbreaks*  *buynewdesk*6.  One side effect of the rise of the cell phone that no one talks much about for some reason?  No more public phone booths means -- wait for it -- no place to change clothes wherever you suddenly need to.  Am I the only one who's noticed this?  Department store changing rooms are too far away, and the clerks there are judgey.  And public restroom stalls?  Um, yeah, I just threw up a little in my mouth.7.  Hate the way, when you throw up a little in your mouth, then you're carrying around that vomitty taste.  You know the taste I mean: tastes like mossy radioactive gravel?  We've all been there.8.  Facebook.  Here's the thing.  Friends from work, okay.  Old school friends from the farm town back home, that's cool.  Your mom and dad and their friends, that's getting weird.  But when someone who actually calls himself your archnemesis -- his words, not mine -- sends you a friend request, what.  Is.  Up.  With.  That?  I'm looking at you, Lex.  #mixedsignals9.  Another thing about the cell phones: what if your outfit doesn't have any pockets, as is the case with many of the outfits one wears daily?  Am I supposed to just carry the phone around in my hand?  smh.  What if I have to get some coffee, or punch somebody?  j/k, normal people don't usually have to do punching.I said there'd be ten, huh?  Gonna have to put a pin in that, though, because my DVR is at like 97% and these back episodes of "Honey Boo Boo" aren't going to watch themselves.  In the meantime, please, comment and link; I'm still trying to figure out how to monetize this mutha.  Clark out!

God and the Case of the Huckabee Quandary

(A humble, run-down detective’s office.  Very Dashiell Hammett.  A rumpled no-nonsense P.I. slouching at his desk.  He has a long white beard.)VOICEOVER: Name’s God.  Just God.  I solve problems.  Sometimes I cause them.  It’s a mysterious ways thing, you wouldn’t get it.  But mostly?  I solve them.  People call me because I get things done.(Phone RINGS.  God answers.)GOD:  God.  Yeah.  Say again?  What kind of atrocity?  No way!  Not on my watch!(God slams down the phone, rushes out.)(God’s racing down the street.)VOICEOVER: Someone’s getting hurt?  I stop it.  Simple as that.  Nothing gets in my way.  Well.  Almost nothing.(GOD arrives at an elementary school.  Sign out front reads “PUBLIC SCHOOL.  PLEASE NO SOLICITORS OR DEITIES.”  God fidgets and paces, stymied.  Thinks about going in anyway but just can’t bring himself to.)GOD:  Aw, c’mon…!  I… hello!  Hey!  God here!  I’m out here!  I came to help!  Can I get a waiver or…?  Like a hall pass?  Something?  No?  Aw, cheese and crackers!(God back at his desk, disgruntled, idle, completing a Rubik’s cube.)VOICEOVER: Hey, what’s a guy supposed to do?  Just because I’m omnipotent doesn’t mean I can do anything I want.FIN