By Brandon Banda, Contributing Writer
On Monday, the Jewish Studies department sponsored a visit from alum Ritch Shydner to discuss the history of standup comedy in the Bowen Auditorium at McCreary Hall. Shydner filled nearly ninety minutes with interesting factoids about comedians such as Artemis Ward, W.C. Fields, Shelley Berman, and Bob Newhart, dating back 160 years to the Civil War and the ways in which these key players changed the landscape of comedy over the years, in which ways it shifted and is never stagnant, and how standups know their audience. Of note, there was a good mix of students from Philosophy 265: Jewish Humor—represented by Professor Steve Gimbel—students not a part of the class, and a good number of professors from different departments on campus. The main points Shydner communicated was that comedy knows no bounds or limits; it can never reach a point of no return; and it never ages. It is an always-evolving art form that needs to adapt to its time, audience, and news.
One of the more important points that Shydner discussed was knowing your audience. This rule of standup not only applied 160 years ago when standup was gaining traction but still applies today. If a standup comic cannot feel out the audience they perform for, then they are basically asking to be ridiculed and booed off stage. So, knowing the times, the type of language used, the level of cleanliness of a joke, or lack thereof, and what is in current news all contributes to a standup’s success. Shydner reviewed some words that were considered obscenities for the times back in the early 1900s and prior. Words like “gosh,” “dang it,” or “shucks,” were some of the examples of dirty words that would reach a point of no return, which is only baffling to hear about now. There are so many comedians today that turn to swearing when they tell jokes that it is almost as innate to them as breathing. So, if comedians wanted to make it back then when times were extensively more prudent and cleaner, they would have to turn toward vaudeville, the cleanest comedy one could get. However, there were comedians that broke these rules of cleanliness to stand out and make an impression among the younger generations, which only carried on as years passed, as comedy evolved based on what was going on or what was being accepted in the US at the time.
One of the comedians that was changing the comedy of his time was Don Rickles. Rickles was known for his candidness and using insults to skyrocket his fame to new heights. Insult comedy was something different for the times, but as times change, as we know, so too does comedy. So, hearing and seeing Rickles light up any member of an audience, any fellow comedian, or any star in his era was a sight that people wanted to behold because it was comedy gold. Not every comedian could pull this off, nor did every audience or venue appreciate this work, but one that did, as Shydner informed us, was the mob. Trying to get a spot for his client at the Copacabana in NYC, the manager, Jules Podell, said that Rickles’ comedy was too inappropriate for his audience. And all Rickles’ manager had to mention was that the boys liked his comedy and wanted to see it—”the boys” being short for the mob—and Podell immediately acquiesced. Stories like this were interesting to learn about mainly because, again, comedy knows no limits. It is not just for people with regular jobs, the upper-class, or specific ethnicities; it is for everyone, including criminals. Therefore, the fanbase a comic grows is astounding when looking back on stories such as the one about Rickles.
During the question and answer portion of Shydner’s presentation, he made a point about discussing cancel culture, something that undoubtedly slips past people’s minds. Cancel culture is not something new to our society and political makeup today; it is something that has always existed for as long as comedy has. This is a worry that many comedians nowadays—or even ones that were more popular some twenty years ago—worry about or discuss in detail, but Shydner has to remind them—amongst one of them, a close friend Jerry Seinfeld—that this is nothing new. People have always been quick to dismiss comics if they were not landing jokes. The same rules apply today: if an audience is considered too vulnerable or a joke too insensitive, then they’ll be stopped dead in their tracks, and the comedy world will move on. Perhaps comedians are worrying that they are a dying breed that will no longer exist if they do not say anything about the sensitivity of today’s culture, but maybe dramatizing the issue is not needed. Yes, there is validity in their worries because certain things cannot ever be discussed in front of large crowds, but that does not mean this is anything new; it just means that like comics of old, current ones need to figure out how to maneuver these boundaries and still make a good name for themselves in today’s landscape. In favor of comedians’ stance on this matter is that maybe others are not seeing that comedians just need to vent about their jobs and their critiques like anyone else. Maybe they are not attacking people for being too sensitive or wanting to cancel someone but are just complaining about another day at the office.
Overall, Shydner’s ninety-minute presentation was very informative and, of course, funny. I think it was something that should have had more people in attendance because, to reiterate, comedy reaches out to everyone and is important for everyone. The setting, the news, the language, and the tone all make for a better sense of relief when watching a standup performance, a movie, or a TV show. Thus, understanding the history of comedy, specifically standup, is crucial to diving deeper into the meanings and points that comedians are trying to convey to widespread and close-knit audiences. Above all else, comedy prevails, and as the semester continues to rear its head, ninety minutes of comedic relief was needed for all those who attended, students and professors alike.
