The Colbert Report (1 Viewer)

[Henry Gale]

And tell all your friends, many people missed this because.....well, you know.

 

[Rick P]

and C-Span is making is available on DVD....

Hmm... should this move to the TV Software forum???

 

[DonaldB]

Is it too grandiose a comparison to say Colbert is this generation's Mark Twain? Some of his best moments are his ad-libs, and he demonstrates in his interviews how quick he is on his feet; he can handle anything and anyone. It's remarkable how he can skewer someone with such devastation and precision while remaining good-natured throughout.

The timid mainstream press's reaction to a recent routine shows how just on target and successfull the bit really was. Watching them squirm and laugh nervously was a joy to behold.

Faux edgy establishment shills like Dennis Miller seem in contrast all the more anemic.

 

[Chucky P]

Here's a clip for the Coibert Report (and Strangers With Candy) fans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amao9...=Amy%20Sedaris

 

[Greg.K]

Colbert's more agile than he looks.

 

[Nick-R]

I like the Repor(t). I like Colbert. I think most of the show is terrific. But I think the way he runs his interviews is kind of BS. When he interviews the guests, he has set it up so that no matter what happens, he's a genius. He gets to play any tension off as a joke - if the guest takes the jab and laughs, its funny. If the guest decides to defend himself, Colbert gets to rebutt with satire (which rarely ever addresses the issue itself) and he's "cutting edge" and the guest "can't take a joke." He simply can't loose. To be honest, I don't think he's any different than the people he's making fun of because they cut their guests off completely (O'Reilly, etc.) Of course, it's your own fault if you go on the show anyways.

If I had to pick between the two, I'd say Stewart would mop the floor with Colbert in a showdown. He's a lot wittier than he puts on.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

That's basically the point of the satire, which all begins with the self congratulatory run over to the interview table. It's all about 'him' not the guests. I thought that format would have been a one joke poney and they would move on, but they've kept with it. Most guests get the joke, some aren't sure, but Stephen rarely ever breaks 'character.' Every once in awhile with a good guest he does break down, or they do get a decent discussion. I don't think it will ever be at the depths of the Daily Show interviews but that may not be the point.

 

[Rich Malloy]

But (and you knew this was coming didn't you?)... that's the whole point!

Colbert employs the tactics, demeanor and arguments of those he's satirizing, and he isn't any different from Bill O'Reilly because in fact he's channeling the papa bear!

Some guests get the ruse, others don't. Either way, it's a satire of the self-aggrandizing, bully boy, right-wing talk-show host. He's more O'Reilly than anyone else in his affect and delivery, but he'll embody the viewpoints of anyone along the right ideological spectrum, from idealistically blinkered but intellectually-minded Neo-cons to the Jesus-Geopolitics of Christian Reconstructionists to USA-luv-it-or-leave-it cornpone Nazis. I don't know how he can keep it up, do it so well, and completely embody the various parts, only occasionally letting the mask slip (and even then never more than a side-long snicker or the occasional knowing look at a guest who gets the ruse), but he seems to keep getting better. And it usually works regardless of the politics of the guest.

This interview of Rep. Westmoreland, R-Ga, has gotta be one of the funniest in recent weeks, and I'm not sure there's any better method than Colbert's when it comes to giving these guys enough rope to hang themselves with: http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/l...and/index.html

Edit: the Westmoreland interview really is there, starting about 2:00 minutes into the clip - Sorry, I didn't realize there were a few other gags at the front!

 

[Brett_M]

You're missing the point. He is doing it to mock the O'Reilly's of the media world.

His interviews are the best part to me. Case in point: He interviewed Jesse Jackson and opened with "So now that racism is gone, what's next for you?" or something to that effect.

He has loosened up in recent weeks and the show makes me laugh every time. "The Word" segement is awesome and "The Better Know A District" is, too.

 

[MarkHastings]

I agree, the funniest part about the show is how Colbert acts like it's all about him. Like he has it all planned in his head (ahead of time) and no matter what happens, he's sticking to his "It's all about me" script.

 

[Nick-R]

Hmm, I'm not so sure there isn't quite a bit of truth in his "playful" jabs.

If it truly is a ruse, then I'd agree with you guys. But I don't think it is. I think part of his motivation is to try to make a fool of his guests, especially if they bite on his schtick. This may not always be the case, but there are some people he lays it on a lot thicker than others. It's not pure satire, I've seen some underlying malicious intent at times.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

On the other hand, I saw a guest on a while ago that used it to his advantage. It was the head of FEMA (ie "Brownie, you're doin' a heck of a job). He used it to get his side of the story out, knowing that as soon as he was getting cornered by questions, Colbert's goofyness would bail him out.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I'm not sure I'm following you... one can certainly combine "satire" and "malicious intent" and Colbert does that all the time. I mean, he's always in the same right-wing, reactionary persona (you'll never see him embody a left-liberal), but some interviews/sketches are certainly more caustic than others. Making the guest appear foolish is certainly fair game on this show (just see the video of the Rep. Westmoreland interview I linked to above).

If you're unfamiliar with him, it may be difficult to determine "intent" in any given situation, but his sharpest ire (most "malicious intent") seems primarily reserved for the fundies (perhaps going back to this "God Talk" segments on the Daily Show). There is one sequence on the show where Colbert/the producers ideology seems readily apparent, and that's "the Word" (Colbert speaks the satire or his "purported" opinion; the Word reveals the underlying "real" opinion).

 

[Nick-R]

I understand all of that. However, a few people have stated that his intent is to mock the O'Reilly types. If that is the case, do you not see the problem? You cannot rip O'Reilly for manipulating his guests and putting spin on topics when you engage in the same behavior, albeit in a slightly sneakier fashion.

You are operating under a large amount of hypocrisy if you want to rip the way they run their shows while you conduct your own show in a way that you either: a.) end up mocking the genre if they play along or b.) manipulate your guests into looking like fools if they don't.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Why not? Why in the world not? And how in the world are the two comparable? Colbert is a walking parody, an undisguised cipher for the preening banality and reactionary rhetoric of a certain sort of know-nothing blowhard. I think O'Reilly takes himself - or his televised persona - quite seriously.

Colbert's irony is simply an efficient means of exposing the intellectual vacuity and complete lack of reportorial standards of the O'Reilly's of the world, not to mention the ever-cheapening discourse that passes for political debate these days. And we single out O'Reilly here only because he's the Colbert model in terms of his affect and rhetoric and is certainly one of the most visual practitioners of said "cable news bloviators". But "The Factor" and similar programs have proven so popular in our dimwitted culture that every other mainstream news program has given up journalism in favor of the new format: the uninformed screed that panders to the prejudices and hot-button emotionalism of its audience. It's really not so different than what Geraldo was doing for years.

Like "The Daily Show", the Colbert Report is fairly serious-minded in its skewering and criticism of journalism. But whereas Jon lets you know how he feels, straight-up, Colbert comes at the subject much more indirectly, by embodying the worst excesses of the largest idiocies of journalism, and praising all that is backwards, ill- or un-considered, and usually in some hilarious permutation of the typically simple-minded, reactionary slogans. But he's certainly serious in his critique, every bit as much so as Jon.

I'm reminded of the White House Correspondents event where after "praising" Bush as a rock against reality, Colbert "flattered" the press in attendance: "Over the last five years the American press was so good over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you journalists had the courtesy not to try to find out. Here's how it works: The president makes decisions - He's 'the decider' - the press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know... fiction." (Silence)

So, I know, you know, most everyone watching Colbert knows it's a big put-on, but that rare guest who somehow manages to get on the show without his handlers and PR people explaining the concept and the inevitable discombobulation that ensues... well, that's certainly a big part of the humor. And it's "sneaky", as you observe - in the same way that, say, Barat (Ali-G) is sneaky, or most of the Daily Show reporters, or The Onion, or McSweeney's, or any of a gazillion other satirical organs are "sneaky" - but I don't find that to be problematic at all, and certainly not an unusual approach in the annals of irony and satire. And Colbert's weilding of his weapons of mass satire is usually good for quite a larf, and occasionally embodies as trenchant an analysis of a particular issue as I'll have heard.

Colbert's not a champion of "truthiness". Rather, he exposes it by embodying its worst traits, as when he deadpanned: "I'm a simple man with a simple mind. I hold a simple set of beliefs that I live by. Number one, I believe in America. I believe it exists. My gut tells me I live there."

 

[Rich Malloy]

"Let's turn now to the War in Iraq... a great war, or the greatest war?"

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Personally, I find the level of discourse on Colbert's show, even filtered through heavy-handed satire, to be much hirer than O'Reilly, Dobbs, Carlson, or any of the other talking heads. Most of their shows consist of spokespeople for various obscure organizations yelling over each other until the titular talking head thanks them for coming on and then tells us which side we should think.
By contrast, the guests Colbert has on are usually interesting and diverse so I find myself actually considering topics the mainstream media doesn't really cover beyond the soundbytes of the date.
And, as for the "malicious intent," when members of Congress get outwitted by out thought by a Comedy Central host, I can't say I have much sympathy for them. Any Congressman who sponsers a bill related to the Ten Commandments should at least know the Ten Commandments. And if someone doesn't know what the Mile High Club is, she (in this case) is so far detached from her consituants that she has no business representing anyone.

 

[Nick-R]

Unfortunately for me, I'm not smart enough to express my opinion on this very well.

I guess if you can't see that Colbert is intending to trap his guests (primarily the conservatives) much like O'Reilly traps his, we'll have to agree to disagree. If the respective hosts desires, there is no way a liberal guest will come out looking good on The Factor, and there is no way a conservative will come out looking good on The Report. In both cases, you either roll over to the host or you loose.


I'll change the topic, however. Do you think this show will work if, in 2 years, the democrats take over? Could he pull of being a liberal playing a talking head-conservative that should be ripping the liberals and still make it funny? It seems like he would have to tweak his character to be able to do it, but it would be amazing to see if he could.

 

[Lew Crippen]

RE Post #54:

Rich

 

[Rich Malloy]

It's hilarious right now when Colbert interviews "liberals"; I suspect it would be just as funny regardless of who controls which branch of goverment.

In one of my favorite Colbert interviews (and I can't remember who it was), the guest was railing against Bush's profligate federal spending, the utter lack of will to reform entitlements programs, the exploding deficit, and how all that will be placed squarely on the heads of future generations who will have to pay for the careless, heedless policies of today.

Colbert reminded him that, in fact, Jesus was coming and, therefore, there will be no deficit. That is, no deficit for the righteous.

Which reminds me of another interview with some godless liberal whose point was basically that the tenets of fundamentalist Christianity (of the Pre/Post-millennial variety) utterly fail in terms of sustaining a society, culture, even humanity because of the childish belief that Jesus will fly down in a cape and save the world regardless of how badly we screw it up. Colbert admonished him, quickly ticking off certain events described in Revelation about an ascendant beast and a three-headed lion and various horribles visited on the planet... "and, look it's complicated, but somewhere in there it says that Jesus will fly down in a cape and save us all". So there.

Is that as funny as Rep. Westmoreland's inability to cite more than 3 of the Ten Commandments after sponsoring a bill to display them in public buildings? Arguably, the point at which ignorance and hypocracy merge (and become a junior Republican congressman) is possibly about as satisfyingly hilarious as anything (of course, that hilarity comes coated in a patina of dread given that somewhere, someone is nodding their head in agreement and pulling voting levers on their behalf). But I suspect there will be plenty of grist for the funny mill regardless of who's sitting in the guest's chair.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Don't worry both sides make often stupid decisions