Last night, Bill Cosby had his first comedy TV special in 30 years. It was broadcast on Comedy Central -- and it was hilarious. If you didn't see it, no doubt they'll be rerunning it often. Find it, and watch it. Ideally, record it so you can zip through quicker. The airtime is 90 minutes, but the concert is a little over an hour. And it's a gem almost all the way through. The theme is the difference between having a girlfriend and her being your wife. And from that simple premise, he weaves wonderful tales and insights that has the audience roaring. In fact, his opening, simple description of the difference lasts almost 15 minutes. Yet it's all insightful and builds upon that starting comic foundation to an even larger point. And that point itself grows for 45 minutes. Only at that point does he get into the concept of children. And though brief by comparison, that's wonderful, as well -- and ties in with having a wife, too. Cosby makes very clear that in all his blunt observations he's not being critical of having a wife, just noting the difference. As he says, when a man answers a question by saying that "My wife is my best friend," it's not true. But in saying it's not true, Cosby emphasizes that a wife is on a much higher plane than a mere friend. But the husband still has to say she's your best friend, at the risk of being killed. He also makes clear that much as men think that as The Man of the House they have responsibility, they actually have none. What's also impressive about the ease of the performance is how he makes it interactive. We've all seen this with musicians, getting the audience involved, but I don't think I ever have with a comedian, not like this. He builds up jokes so that the audience can deliver the punch line, even without knowing it beforehand. And then even more impressively, he occasionally twists that and when the audience shouts out a punch line, he cries out, "NO!" and switches it in another direction. It's a master class of a stand-up comedy, particularly since (as he's done for years), he performs his stand-up sitting down. The thing that was perhaps most fun for me is that it harkened back several years ago when a good friend got married, and his wife's father was a major mucky-muck agent. And later in the evening at the wedding, Bill Cosby (one of his clients) showed up after having hosted the Playboy Jazz Festival at the Hollywood Bowl. He delivered a hysterical speech to the newly-married couple that in many ways was a precursor to this TV special. It was about the responsibilities the new groom had to grasp. "Starting from now on," he said, "you must understand that when your wife says 'Good night' and that she's going up to bed...whatever you are doing is over, and you are going up to bed, as well. It may sound like she is only the one going to bed, but no, you both are." No, according to Bill Cosby, a marriage is the wife's world, and the husband is there to go along for the ride. Check your schedule on Comedy Central and find Bill Cosby: ...far from finished. It's just a joy.
3 Comments
Ever since AOL bought the Huffington Post in February, 2011, I've been regularly asked if I've seen any change. For the longest time I said no, it was still largely the same. But that's no longer true. Over the past year there have been some small, but noticeable difference, and within the past 2-3 months the changes have been significant. As the site expanded in some interesting ways (including starting its HuffPost Live division, and numerous local and international sections), it has unquestionably become far more corporate and protective, becoming less willing to be as out front as it was when it created its brand.
This isn't to mean it's become worse or better, that's personal taste. But it's definitely different. Once upon a time, bloggers on the Huffington Post published their pieces directly. It was fast and fluid and gave the site a jump on major media for content and interaction. Now, every piece has to be approved first by an editor before it can be posted. Such a change is very reasonable, it's just slowed the process, which can now be sluggish in the otherwise immediacy of the Internet. It now, for instance, includes having to wait for the Blog Team to fix a typo, rather than authors quickly making the correction themselves. Again, understandable, but a heavy-handed and turtle-slow way of handling things for the speed-eating online world, especially if a story is breaking. Yet even something this simple has now changed with an added corporate layer: within the past month, when sending in a typo request, one as simple as changing verb tense, you today get back a reply that "We'll send this to an editor for approval." Correcting typos has now been removed from the basic responsibilities of the Blog Team. Indeed, far-more notable controls have been added in recent months. Now, for example, before a piece be be posted, a window pops up requiring the writer to check a box, accepting the rules and conditions of the Huffington Post. It's a small matter, and s nothing wrong with making sure all bloggers accept the rules --- but a) that check-box never existed before, and b) more to the point, it clearly suggests the new, corporate structure. After all, such rules already exist on each blogger's private page, noting that "you agree that the terms set out below," Requiring it be done manually every single time seems far more like a corporate lawyer has gotten involved to invoke a layer of protective overkill. Mostly, though, within the post few months, it's been clear that what is "acceptable" for publication content has changed -- drastically. Up until recently, speaking just personally, I'd say that about 98% of what I've written for the Huffington Post (over 700 pieces) have been made Featured Articles. But in the last month alone, I've had two articles not just "not Featured," but refused publication, period. Both were harsh. But both were even-handed, fair, and well-documented, and also, I believed, on important subjects. And both, I'm certain would have been posted pre-AOL, even if it meant in slightly edited form. The first was an admittedly blistering piece here about Sarah Palin. While I thoroughly disagree with the decision to not even post it on my own, personal section, regardless of not being Featured, I can at least understand why policies might have changed to take that action -- it was extremely harsh. Yet the article give reasons and evidence and hyperlinks to back up all its assertions, It was supportable and defensible. More to the point: even if one is understanding of the publication's position to not post it, less-understandable is that it was never offered to be rewritten, something always done pre-AOL. The problematic passage would simply be changed, and the harsh article would be published, just slightly less-biting. But the voice was there. Mind you, much of this is just a guess -- no reason was given why it was blocked. And that's a change, too, from the earlier openness and transparency. What points far more to the changes in policy, though, is my article here last Wednesday, which is far more inexplicable. That's because I truly have zero idea why it wasn't published. Not even a reasonable guess. Again, the article was very critical – though I've been writing exceedingly critical articles for seven years on the Huffington Post. This new article took a columnist from the Chicago Tribune to task for what was just a clear, right-wing meltdown rant against Barack Obama, the columnist spending the last 24 paragraphs calling the president a liar. I dissected the piece and connected it to right wing media in general. And it was rejected. It wasn't pushed down to just their local Chicago page. It wasn't simply buried in my blog section alone. Just flat turned down. I wish I could tell you why. But I sent numerous emails to a wide range of staff and editors simply asking what the problem was with the article so that I don’t repeat the issue -- and each time, I also kept offering to rewrite it. But I got zero answers. None of this was the procedure before AOL took over. There was always a good, open rapport with editors. I liked and respected the people I dealt with. I still do -- they're just having to deal with corporate changes imposed on them. (Okay, I'm not crazy about not getting replies to questions. But who knows, even that might be policy today.) To be clear, none of this is personal. I have an outlet right here and several other place to publish what I write. And I know others who've had pieces blocked, as well -- one of which seemed inoffensive in any way, written by a successful author having to do just with interpersonal relations -- though it did criticize a TV show. The issue is not me being blocked, or others. That's any publication's right. The issue too isn't that readers are unaware of what's being blocked -- readers of everything never have a clue what policies are in place behind the scenes, where such things always reside. The larger matter at play is that, in doing so, the ground is being ceded to the far right. The Huffington Post is a leading voice of liberal opinion. And at times an impressive one. However, in allowing conservative media to, for one example, call the President of the United States a Nazi, socialist, Kenyan, terrorist traitor, or to spend 24 paragraphs of a column calling the president a liar -- and to not allow refutation or response, then you are leaving the demeaning slurs to go unanswered. And as a result, they become the standard on which discussion starts. To be clear, the Huffington Post still provides sharp and critical commentary. It still is a good outlet for a good range of thought. Often a very good outlet. If they still don't unfortunately pay for bloggers, that's unfortunate, but a decision everyone there makes whether to write or not. It's a strong, important news and information site, and looks to get even stronger. But...its policies have clearly changed since AOL took the company over. All things change. And when a corporation pays $400 million to buy something, you have to expect them to put their imprint on it. And you have to expect them to protect what is now a massive investment. That's understandable, and it's understandable that they'll make changes. It's just that these changes seem far more corporate and much more carefully and unnecessarily protective than I think are in the site's and readers' best interests. Whether those changes are for the better or not, that's another matter and in the eye of the beholder. Their opinion, no doubt, is very different. But now, when people ask if the Huffington Post has changed after being bought by AOL, the answer is, "Yes." So, I'm sitting here watching the Sunday Night Football game, and a commercial just came on for Subway, which has a tie-in with The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Over clips for the film and Katniss looking tough and, apparently, bold, we hear the voice-over announcer telling us in as powerful and bold tone as possible -- "Bold can be standing up for what you believe in. "Bold can be testing your limits and defying ALL odds. "And now..." (And here we cut from pictures of the bold Jennifer Lawrence to pictures of tasty subs. The narrator continues in his stentorian tones --) "...Bold can be found at Subway. "Fiery footlongs, a revolution in bold taste! Sizzling taste like the Sriracha Chicken Melt. Made with a selected blend of sriracha chili peppers...for our boldest flavor yet. "Get yours and get to the theater on November 22nd for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Subway. Be Bold. Eat Fresh." Okay, it was all very bold, all very imposing, all very imperious. But one thing stood out to as missing. As I watched the commercial, it was a bit difficult not to look at this deep, rich intonation trying ti impress us how just like this mega-succesful movie the product is, and all I could think is, hey, y'know, this is just a sandwich. But I get it, it's an ad, and they want to make the point, so, fine, fair enough. The sandwich is bold. And fiery. And it's bold, really bold. But something really was missing. And when the movie's logo comes on at the end, it should have been clear to the company and ad agency what it was. The movie is called, The Hunger Games.
Sandwiches, in the end, really have nothing to do with being bold. But eating them has everything to do with...well, hunger. They couldn't figure out a way to work in something like, oh -- "Curb your hunger"?? Hey, it's loopy having a sandwich company doing a tie-in with a movie whose story centers around a dystopian future where there's great poverty and hunger, and people compete in the Big Games simply to survive. But at least if you're going to leap past that...why not make a connection between your product and the movie that actually exists...??? As I note each month, it is a maniacal effort to re-code and format for Elisberg Industries my tech review column, "The Writers Workbench" that I write for the Writers Guild Online and Huffington Post. So, rather than do so, I prefer to just direct you over there instead.
This month, the column covers a variety of items you can take on the road to help make it a Home Office Away from Home. You can fine it here, but the WGA version has more product pictures and the TWW Notes at the end, so that would be here. This is pretty long -- an hour-and-a-half, in fact -- but I suspect that for maniacal fans of Breaking Bad, nothing is too long if it's with their God Hero, Vince Gilligan. Then again, even you've never seen that show, this is a pretty interesting, enjoyable interview with a wonderful writer about his career and craft. The Writers Guild of America has a series of programs organized by the Writers Education Committee, the chairman of which is my pal Jeff Melvoin who I gather with each week during the football season to watch the Chicago Bears. But I digress. Anyway, for this event, Gilligan -- the creator of Breaking Bad -- talks about a wide range of topics, including Walter White. It all begins with a wonderful tale of how he got started, on The X-Files. But in telling it, you learn one of the best lessons for interviewing for a job -- if you don't care whether or not you get hired, there's a good chance you won't be stressed. And Gilligan, as you'll hear, not only had no expectation of being hire, he wasn't even there trying to get a job. You'll hear a lot more, too. And not to worry, you won't wait until the end, he gets to Breaking Bad about 23 minutes in. The interviewer is Guild member Chuck Rose. It's still been a quiet week. Today's tale concerns parents (having them and being one), and also a sweet tale of love long-delayed
|
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|