I have been slow to review Gilbert Gottfried who is appearing at Las Vegas Hilton as the debut act in their Icon’s of Comedy showcase. The reason is that his act left me befuddled, and I am not sure what to make of him. Of course, this is a unhelpful view to bring to readers and I am sorry. The room was full and his audience was clearly enjoying themselves. So, if you are a fan already, Gottfried is clearly hitting the mark his audience expects. And, yet, I often felt I was not in on the joke. Why is doing an imitation of of Andrew “Dice” Clay funny in 2011? Or, for that matter, Bela Lugosi?
Still, there was quite a bit I loved about Gottfried. The opening of his act which was a sort of meta joke about comedy was as smart as it was funny. And, I found his odd stage presence, more like a lead singer burying himself into the microphone stand than a stand-up performer, engaging. He is clearly different than most comics who perform in Vegas, and I want to stand behind anything that feels outside the box. Yet, in truth, I was more often confused than amused.
Can you explain Gottfried’s humor to me?
Gilbert is a comedian in the vein of Margaret Cho, Kathy Griffin, and Steven Colbert. Much of their humor is only funny when you understand the comic’s life (or at least the life they show us through the entertainment personna they seem to live 24/7). It’s often not what they say, but what they say given the perspective of where it’s being said from.
I’m being no help at all.
Gilbert is very funny to me, but then I’ve listened to him for years on Howard Stern, where we learn about Gilbert’s incredible cheapness, his bizarre personal life, his fetish for old horror movies, and his amazing reinterpretation of Borscht Belt comedy. He’s all meta, and I love him.
Gilbert is a simultaneous standup act and parody of standup act. Setups and premises point to cliched comic stereotypes, then twist in insane directions just before they get there. Impressions -– such as the Dice one you embedded — start with accurate quirks that grow exaggerated enough to swallow the bit so whole that actual words no longer matter.
I’ve seen a thousand sets of comedy since witnessing Gilbert Gottfried at Caroline’s at the Seaport in 1989. They include Pryor, Rock, Seinfeld, Kinison, Hedberg, Rickles, Attel, Schimmel, Romano, Shandling, Richard Lewis, Lewis Black, Jeffrey Ross, Jackie Mason, Sarah Silverman. NONE has approached the hysterics induced by that Gilbert show.
However, you are not seeing the same Gilbert that I did, and I’m not sure I know how to explain it. My wife and I saw his act at the Hilton last week. And only mild amusement was achieved.
You can say, “Oh, Gilbert hasn’t evolved,” and in a sense be right. Many of the jokes were the same as they were 20 years ago. (Where were the people on the other side of the Last Supper table? What did Jesus have on his dashboard?) But they weren’t unfunny because I remembered them. (I didn’t realize the jokes were the same until I hit the Internet after the show. And you, Richard, had obviously never seen him before.)
And I don’t think that making the act contemporary would solve the problem. Bela Legosi was just as ludicrously out of date in 1989, and yet seemed much funnier then. It’s BEING out of date that makes it funny, that makes it a parody of a standup act.
Perhaps Gilbert’s humor is only meant to be enjoyed by the 20-year-old mind. Perhaps pop culture has changed in imperceptible ways that render him less funny than he was 20 years ago. Perhaps his delivery is less enthusiastic and more rote.
Or, and I hate thinking this, perhaps the idea of a young nerdy kid doing impressions such as Legosi and old Groucho –- celebrities that cool kids weren’t even supposed to KNOW –- was funnier than a gray and wrinkled man doing them now.
The phrase “comedian’s comedian” is used a lot when talking about Gilbert. His material is not the funniest and most of it would be deadly if delivered by any other comedian. But what Gilbert has is the sharpest delivery on the planet, as if he calculates his pauses and reactions to the millisecond. He’s a “character comedian” in the same way Bobcat Goldthwait was but he makes it hard to determine where the character ends and the real man begins.
So, Mr Richard Abowitz, it’s good to see you writing about things other than porn. I read your extremely homophobic December article which basically blamed men who have sex with men for the spread of HIV in the porn industry. I found your conclusions to be extremely incorrect and homophobic towards male-male sexuality.
You also failed to point out the homosexual activity that is common between the promiscuous women in so-called straight porn, do you? What’s wrong, Richard? Girl-girl is saintly, is it? You also failed to point out that unprotected anal sex is common between the promiscuous bisexual women and straight guys in straight porn. They get a pass, do they?
Stop blaming male-male sexuality for the spread of venereal illnesses, Richard. Sexuality does not cause illness. Promiscuity causes illness. Promiscuity is rife in straight porn. You shouldn’t be scapegoating male-male sexuality.
Thanks for reading Brian, but your misunderstanding of whatever article you are talking about is so complete that I do not know what you are talking about. You are attaching views to my name that are not mine. In fact, they are not even remotely close to my views. Yrs, Richard