Day 158,
I've had a mini-epiphany about why some stand-up comedians suck and others always hit the mark.
Watch this segment of Kill Tony: https://youtu.be/ZgHR4ug866Q?si=HoanHLXH87yyH8uw&t=1326
They bring up this walk-on, who cycles through a bunch of material for a minute; trouble is that you have no idea where he's going.
It's crude and it has a bunch of random derivatives and spin-offs.
Then, the panelists - who are dressed up like Trump and Biden - just spit out gold each line.
The difference is that the walk-on is too scared to commit to embodying a character; I'll explain why that matters in a moment.
This is why 'tactics' and conversational gambits usually don't work; they wind up getting duct-taped onto someone who is fragmented and doesn't know what they're trying to portray to a live audience.
This isn't even about being "transparent" or "authentic"; it's about putting something definite out in front of an audience, regardless of fear of judgment.
Here's why having a character matters in comedy, even if it's a character close to who *you* are in day-to-day life:
Characters have a clear motive; they don't always need to state their motive, but the audience will be able to pick up on it if you are smart about your choice of statements and jokes.
The problem is that a clear motive can get shot down. Motive can be mocked and picked at. Motive polarizes and galvanizes. Motive creates enemies.
All of that rejection can sting.
If you're struggling with shame, guilt or fear, then it will be nearly impossible to stand firm behind this character or the character's motives, and you'll likely slip in validation-seeking behaviors and flip-flop; this will come across as inconsistent.
The audience will be scratching their heads and wonders: "what is this guy about?"
A comedian sees that and assumes: "maybe I just need to do more. Random! Loud! Vulgar!"
Because their confusing inconsistencies got a few chuckles, they figure that more blatant inconsistencies will get even more chuckles.
With the Trump character in the video, Shane Gillis always redirects random conversational threads back to electioneering; it's funny because that is what Trump would do.
Even when someone is indirect in their choice of words, if there's a clear motive behind it, it can be funny to hear them bungle the logical steps to actualize their motive.
That's why the Trump and Biden characters can make statements that also seem "random," but they're in fact very intelligent callbacks to their motives, and the audience will remember the character's motive, connect it back to this "random" statement, and see the comedy in it.
All of the other elements - voices, accents, comedic timing, loudness, vulgarities - are ways to enhance the illusion of the character and motive; you keep the façade going by handling those. You use these frills to preserve funny, not "build" it.
I've had a mini-epiphany about why some stand-up comedians suck and others always hit the mark.
Watch this segment of Kill Tony: https://youtu.be/ZgHR4ug866Q?si=HoanHLXH87yyH8uw&t=1326
They bring up this walk-on, who cycles through a bunch of material for a minute; trouble is that you have no idea where he's going.
It's crude and it has a bunch of random derivatives and spin-offs.
Then, the panelists - who are dressed up like Trump and Biden - just spit out gold each line.
The difference is that the walk-on is too scared to commit to embodying a character; I'll explain why that matters in a moment.
This is why 'tactics' and conversational gambits usually don't work; they wind up getting duct-taped onto someone who is fragmented and doesn't know what they're trying to portray to a live audience.
This isn't even about being "transparent" or "authentic"; it's about putting something definite out in front of an audience, regardless of fear of judgment.
Here's why having a character matters in comedy, even if it's a character close to who *you* are in day-to-day life:
Characters have a clear motive; they don't always need to state their motive, but the audience will be able to pick up on it if you are smart about your choice of statements and jokes.
The problem is that a clear motive can get shot down. Motive can be mocked and picked at. Motive polarizes and galvanizes. Motive creates enemies.
All of that rejection can sting.
If you're struggling with shame, guilt or fear, then it will be nearly impossible to stand firm behind this character or the character's motives, and you'll likely slip in validation-seeking behaviors and flip-flop; this will come across as inconsistent.
The audience will be scratching their heads and wonders: "what is this guy about?"
A comedian sees that and assumes: "maybe I just need to do more. Random! Loud! Vulgar!"
Because their confusing inconsistencies got a few chuckles, they figure that more blatant inconsistencies will get even more chuckles.
With the Trump character in the video, Shane Gillis always redirects random conversational threads back to electioneering; it's funny because that is what Trump would do.
Even when someone is indirect in their choice of words, if there's a clear motive behind it, it can be funny to hear them bungle the logical steps to actualize their motive.
That's why the Trump and Biden characters can make statements that also seem "random," but they're in fact very intelligent callbacks to their motives, and the audience will remember the character's motive, connect it back to this "random" statement, and see the comedy in it.
All of the other elements - voices, accents, comedic timing, loudness, vulgarities - are ways to enhance the illusion of the character and motive; you keep the façade going by handling those. You use these frills to preserve funny, not "build" it.
UMS v2 Journal (current) || Overcoming Fear 5.75G Journal
