So, Have Things Gotten Less Funny Since Tuesday?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


There hasn’t been this much public existential dread from the comedy community since 9/11, although the reasons are, of course, very different. Seven years ago, our shock and horror made us wonder if we could ever laugh again. Now, the question is: without a bumbling, snickering doofus and his snarling evil sidekick/boss in the White House, where will our jokes come from? The New York Times asked various comedy professionals about the conundrum, and all of them, from Daily Show and Conan writers to Tracy Morgan and Joel McHale, expressed confidence in the future of chuckles. J. K. Havlan of the Daily Show assured us Jon Stewart has plenty of material:

We haven’t sat around thinking, “What are we going to do, comedically, if Obama wins?” There’s going to be plenty going on around him. Plus, Ted Stevens may have won in Alaska. Proposition 8 passed in California. We don’t need a semiconscious president to put on a decent show.

Hmm, I still don’t see anything there about how you’re going to make fun of President Obama. Perhaps most symbolically, Saturday Night Live‘s usually-awesome Fred Armisen has Obama’s gestures and speech patterns down pretty well, but hasn’t yet managed to actually say anything funny, which is especially disappointing in comparison to Will Ferrell’s twitchy W. and Darrell Hammond’s lascivious Bubba. Thankfully, the first two nights of post-Obama-win TV comedy have shown a few glimmers of hope. Some clips after the jump.

South Park producers must have stayed up all night Tuesday after Obama’s speech, incorporating much of his exact verbiage into their Wednesday night episode. The plot was pretty amusing, imagining all the candidates (minus, tellingly, Joe Biden) as secret members of a team of master thieves, running for the White House just to gain access to the Hope Diamond. The portrayal of Barack as a kind of bland, hapless dork (earning the scorn of the driven, brilliant Michelle) was amusing for its absurdity, but of course it was Palin who got the funniest take: faking the dopiness, she’s really a brilliant super-spy, delivering rapid-paced technical jargon with a British accent. If only.

So far, what I’ve seen of Chocolate News seems like it’s just an excuse for David Alan Grier to dress up in ladies’ clothes, but his first post-election show managed to balance both a respectful awe at the moment and edgy hilarity. He discussed Obama’s win with another “white-talking black guy” who greeted the news with an appropriate, “dude, that’s awesome.” And sure, Grier got to put on another fat suit and wig, but his portrayal of a dippy poll worker and her continual mispronunciation of the president-elect’s name (“Balack Pajama”?) was milk-out-the-nose funny.

Jon Stewart’s comedic instincts still suffer under his clear relief at Obama’s win, and he acknowledged the situation Wednesday by following up a mildly successful William Ayers joke with a sarcastic cry: “How are we going to make this s*** funny?!” Sure, it was pretty cute seeing Stewart debut his Obama impression, which turned out to be exactly the same as his sneering Bush impression, except with the words “yes we can.” But how long can he keep doing Bush? It took “senior black correspondent” Larry Wilmore’s segment on “black liberal guilt” last night to really raise the comedy stakes:

What have we learned? Well, there’s reassuringly funny stuff out there, but a good take on Obama still seems miles away. As our least-obviously-funny president since Ford, perhaps someone should look to Chevy Chase as our guide: his klutzy Gerald was hilarious precisely because it was a deadpan anti-impression, exaggerating the president’s one or two random mishaps into a nonstop cavalcade of slapstick mayhem. Of course, we have no evidence Obama is prone to head-bumping or phone-dropping, but Fred Armisen’s impression could really use some shaking up, or some absurdity. Maybe that’s the new comedic zeitgeist: author and Mother Jones contributor Dennis Cass predicts we’ll see “the return of screwball,” and while I’m as big a fan of snark as you’ll find, I hope he’s right.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate