366 Days Since “The Dinner”
(First, a little disclaimer that this is not a “Stephen Colbert” blog despite the prevalence of posts lately related to him. It is, however, a blog about things that interest me, and since his show (and by extension him) fall into that group, sometimes he’s a-gonna pop up. Sorry for all you non-TCR fans out there.)
Today is a year and a day since Stephen Colbert’s awe-aspiring performance at the White House Correspondents Association dinner.
There is not much I can say that someone somewhere hasn’t already said.
Stephen has said in other interviews that he doesn’t know what the fuss was about; that he was doing jokes he’d been doing on The Colbert Report for 6 months (which is true), but of course he wasn’t doing them in the face of the person to whom they were directed; and that he didn’t intend for his performance to be either a divisive motion or a rallying cry. He has said he didn’t look at it as something “brave” or courageous or anything else except a performance. On the other hand, he also called Jon Stewart upon receiving the invitation to headline and they both wondered if the WHCA reps were out of their fucking minds to invite him; and his head writer, Allison Silverman (who helped write the speech), has said that when she was sitting at the table at the dinner, listening to him speak, she thought, as he went into it, Oh my god he’s really really going to go for it. So he and they had to have known, to some extent, what kind of reaction they’d get. Maybe the fact it went where it did–that it went so very far–made him want to play down its significance. Because he often tells us he is a comedian, not a political figure, not a news commentator, not a legitimate voice from whom anyone should be deriving anything except laughs. Well he can say that all he wants but I don’t think Stephen is as naïve as all that. Satire has been used for centuries to say obliquely what the actual voice cannot say overtly. And sometimes it is much more powerful that way. And he must know this. Or he realized it very quickly after April 29, 2006.
If he had done the same act in a different venue, the reaction would probably have been different. Much less noticeable. Or if Bush had laughed or played along, it would have gone down as a cuttingly sarcastic yet funny comedy performance that the good-sport GW took in stride. Or if the mainstream media had not made such a clumsy and painfully obvious effort to ignore and then almost belittle it (famously claiming he “bombed”), the resultant worldwide Web distribution and subsequent explosion over it probably would not have been anywhere near what it was. Add to his own speech the “audition tape” (a parody of an audition for him to become the new White House press secretary, which was a brilliant backhanded commentary on the shameful blackballing of Helen Thomas after she dared to ask why Bush lied to get us into a war), and you have the stuff legends are made of. Stephen went into the stratosphere after that appearance. He would not be where he is today if he had never been to that dinner. The perception of the media and the Administration would not be where it is, despite Bush’s already-falling ratings. That speech, if nothing else, made people sit up and wake up and take notice. And I don’t mean take notice of Stephen Colbert. Although that was a side effect to be sure.
I get google alerts about a variety of subjects and judging from the emails in my inbox, I am not the only one marking this date. I must have received 30 or 40 alerts already on this same topic. I would bet big money that there will be no google alerts next April marking Rich Little’s 2007 appearance as the headline act. What a difference a year makes. In more ways than one.
The speech is available for viewing here. Watch and learn.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I have always found Stephen’s comments (as well as Jon’s) about not being a political figure interesting. I’m guessing the reluctance to be seen as a political figure has to do, in part, with not wanting to be identified with one particular party. But anyone who has watched TDS, the show that ‘birthed’ TCR, for any length of time knows that both political parties are fair game–neither is held to be sacrosanct as both are incredibly fallible.
And then, I guess there’s just plain old humility, which I sometimes get in comments the real Stephen Colbert has made about his dinner speech. Perhaps, that is another reason why he dismisses it as being neither brave or courageous.
Either way, Stephen’s response to the response about his speech is curious to me. I’m not sure I’ll ever totally understand it.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I think that although they are primarily NOT political figures, they are political comedians, for lack of a better term. Jon especially; he made The Daily Show what it is on the force of his political beliefs. Or rather, his idealism of politics and how the media relates to it. Although I don’t think he is an idealist: I view him as a realist. Idealism can, if one chooses, remain in the fairy-land of the clouds but realism can be changed. And Jon does what he can to make things change, or hope for things to change, in the way he is able to do it. As for Stephen’s saying he didn’t except the WHCD to be anything but an act, I just don’t buy it. He is too smart for that. Plus it’s clear based on other people’s comments that they all knew what kind of a they were writing. They had to have known it would not be the standard dull event banquet yawnfest. I suppose the ton of bricks that landed was beyond their wildest imaginings of the night, though.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Yes, political comedians is the perfect word for both of them in my book anyway. I, too, see Jon as being a mix between an idealist and realist; I love that about him He’s aware of the muck we live in but still has hopes that we will rise up and does what he can to help drag our asses up out of it.
You may be right on about Stephen. He just has me scratching my head over the WHCD.