In Performing Marginality: Comedy, Identity, and Cultural Critique, Joanne Gilbert breaks down the culture of stand up comedy, specifically for women stand up comediennes. In this essay, she refers to Phyllis Diller and Roseanne Bar, connecting their work to her own, and breaks down different archetypal characters that are assumed while performing various versions of themselves.
Her main argument is that female comedians, as other marginalized groups have key strategies that at first disempowers them by painting them as victims, but that they then find empowerment and liberation from this.
An significant quote from the essay,
"Because they represent a group marginalized by the dominant (male) culture, female comics rhetorically construct and perform their marginality onstage. In so doing, they perform both self and culture, exemplifying for audiences the inevitable interdependence between personal and social identities. Because of the 'us against them' nature of marginal humor (humor performed by any marginal group, e.g., African-American, gay/lesbian, Jewish comics etc.), marginal comics often construct themselves as victims. In so doing, however, they may subvert their own staty by embodying the potential power of powerlessness." (Gilbert 1)
What is significant about this passage is the idea that the powerless can become powerful in their disempowered state. Perhaps more importantly, Gilbert highlights that humour creates a community of oppressed as it seems very much that we exist in a world of "us against them" where marginalized communities are lumped together willingly or otherwise against the dominant male culture. Gilbert follows up this passage by suggesting that from this rhetoric, comedians have a space that is safe to speak in and free from potential retribution from the dominant forces.
Gilbert then breaks down concepts of performing identity in a comical context. Recognizable techniques include self-deprecating humour, as well as performing caricatures and playing up stereotypes of various woman roles. She follows up with an observation that self-deprecating humor is a double-edged sword. Where it is a means of "self defense given socialcultural parameters," it can sometimes be viewed as anti-feminist and feeds the negative views of women. (Gilbert 2)
With Phyllis Diller, and Roseanne Barr, Gilbert then breaks down some of these archetypes. The first as the "Whiner." Over her lengthy career, Phyllis Diller became known for her self depracating humour, costumes, and hair.
Here is an example of one of her more popular jokes:
"When I was born I was so ugly the doctor slapped everybody (laughter). My father asked the doctor: is it a boy or a girl? He said no." (Diller, ABC.net.au interview)
So what did Phyllis Diller do? The nature of her humour was a culture and complaint. Complaining about her fictitious husband and children, breaking down the struggles of life and her station. Though at first it seems incredibly self damaging, and retroactive to the feminist movement, Gilbert in response notes that her speaking these issues out loud "calls cultural values into question by lampooning them." (Gilbert 3)
Here, I would make an argument, with no intention to sound petulant but this sounds awfully a lot like "no publicity is bad publicity." Voicing it out loud, if listeners are not given the context or unable to recognize the humour (which one can never actually be too sure), does it not indeed promote the negative view of women and paint an image of self loathing and low self worth?
This was my first question upon reading the passage, and with refreshing response, Gilbert Quotes Diller from another interview in,
"Of course, I was accused of being self-deprectory. I've got to be... Comedy is tragedy revisited or hostility. It is mock hostility... See, if everything is good, you've got Grace Kelly and that's not funny." (Gilbert 4)
I mentioned this on my post regarding Margaret Cho, who perhaps lives on the angrier side of female comedy. What does it mean to play the victim and how does one overcome this? This brings us to another archetype that Gilbert discusses, the "Bitch" and here she mentions Roseanne Barr. In response to Diller, Barr speaks how she instead of being the butt of her own jokes, she made men the main targets- reaching out from the image of a disgruntled housewife. She "packaged" herself as the "everyman" in a role as a "fat mother and fat neighbour," the character that everyone seemed to know or be familiar with. (Gilbert 4)
Gilbert recognizes the contradiction in this however, that Barr specifically makes references to her weight, voice, and status as a disgruntled housewife (in her act) which falls in line with the victimized position. That said, it was one of the strengths of the Roseanne show, approaching the masses from the position of a Middle American, middle-low income family. The show was a huge success until the characters were elevated from their lowly station by winning the lottery, getting rich, and losing much of the clout that suffering afforded them.
Later in her argument, Gilbert makes an important view of Barr, who self-identifies as a feminist- but does that automatically make her work feminist? (Gilbert 5) It is here that I share questions of authenticity and validity. Does me being a Queer-Asian Artist make my work Queer? Asian? Especially when my work is autobiographical in itself. The obvious answer is yes. The longer answer- is that it doesn't have to be.
I also cited the work of Benny Nemerofsky Ramsay on this blog, and he shares similar sentiments- though several of his works involve the exploration of a feminized male voice (specifically his own), many critics view his work as Queer, and though it can be viewed this way, it does not need to be.
Other important highlights in the essay recognize that "stereotypes are part of the currency of stand-up comedy. Comics constantly type themselves and their targets." (Gilbert 7) This speaks directly to the idea that there are targets, and that someone/something/somehwere is the butt of the joke. In many ways because everyone and every label can be a target, it levels the playing ground and this is what creates a zone of safety from retribution.
The other key points of Gilberts argument further expand on "self-deprecation and subversion" and the concepts of "victims and butts (of jokes)". What I would highlight from here is that the victim and the butt of the jokes are not the same (at least not always). Gilbert explains that this "depends entirely upon audience identification and interpretation." (Gilbert 11) What this says to me is that it reinforces the idea that adjustments are made, or resistance is created to establish power and control in a space of performance.
The best example is my reference to Deanne Smith, an out-lesbian comedian, who starts her sets with jokes about her vagina to 1) let the audience know that the set will be "going there" and 2) she disarms the sometimes socially delicate subject of female genitalia by referring to her vagina as her "vah-jim-jam". In this way, she can either deliver the joke to a room full of out and open lesbians who may identify with her humour and laugh along, or deliver it to a room full of potentially conservative men who need to be given permission to laugh and know what to expect so that they can choose to stay or leave.
How does this apply to my work? Rice was a three man show that explored Queer Asian Identity, specifically targeting the terminology and derogatory image of Queer Asian Men as a Queer subculture. The work was deeply personal, and the feedback was that it was both generous, vulnerable and so very funny. Like stand up, the text we created and the way we framed my story utilized all the techniques Gilbert mentions to create a relationship where the audience leaves learning more about me, and my experiences but hopefully in a way that connects us as opposed to objectifying me further.
I think that's the goal of stand up comedy- laughing at ourselves, each other, to lighten up, and recognize commonalities and realizing that we are all potential targets.
Gilbert, Joanne. "Performing Marginality: Comedy, Identity, and Cultural Critique." Text and Performance Quarterly 17 (1997): 317-330.
Last accessed April 12, 2013:
-Title,
-main
argument
of the writer,
-how
it
relates to your work and questions,
-some
quotes,
-further
reading/definitions
or research you did to help understand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment