The fine folks at Shecky Magazine just posted an excerpt of an interview with Larry Miller. The piece they excerpted was this:
I think that the first thing comedians, actors, musicians, painters, and a lot of people disagree with me on this, but the first and ONLY thing we should all do is entertain. That to me is a very honorable word; it's not a shallow word. It's very, very deep. Whether it's drama or comedy, I think there is great honor, passion, and light in entertaining people. I think, in particular with comedy, people are kidding themselves when they think "I'll be an engine for change." (laughs) I don't think that's ever going to occur anyway. At that point the comedian is probably making a mistake. You understand that I am not talking about political material — that can very often be hysterical. 'Cause again, funny is funny, but that's just another topic for me. Like dating or parents or loneliness or football. I don't think change should be involved. First of all, the problem is that you are telling half your audience that they are stupid. I don't want that. When the lights go down in a room, I would like everyone to think "this is a safe place and I am ready to be entertained. I can just feel like a kid again."
Here's a Meg fun-fact for you: when I was in college and depressed, back before I discovered the magic of comedy, I wanted to be an installation artist. I wanted to this so badly that I applied to transfer from my college in upstate New York to the University of Iowa. But then, the semester before I was supposed to leave, I took a class on art since 1960, and that class killed any desire I had to be a professional artist. My professor's message was this: every contemporary artist has to make art that communicates. Anything else is worthless.
While I do like spreading a good message, I wasn't interested in art because I wanted to make some symbolic gesture about the state of copyright in America or how we're so wrapped up in technology or whatever. I wanted to make something aesthetically pleasing. Of course, I recognize now that my professor was just some lady and I could have done whatever I damned well pleased with art, communicating or not. But man oh man, I am so glad that I didn't go to Iowa. I'm much happier making comedy. I want to make people laugh, and that gives me a greater feeling of satisfaction than any of the art I ever did in college.
That's why it makes me happy to hear someone defend the art of entertaining. I've gone through periods of self-doubt where I wonder if choosing to focus my creative efforts on comedy meant I was simply a base person, and I'd have to resign myself to that. But I don't think that's the case. We need plumbers and electricians, and we need conceptual artists and entertainers. They're not high and low—they're just two different things. (Frequently they even come packaged together—can anyone recommend a good plumtrician?)
I do think, however, there is potential for changing opinions with comedy. I agree with Larry that the "I'll be an engine for change" mindset doesn't really work. That headspace can create material that's more of a rant than enjoyable comedy (some of David Cross's material, as much as I love him, starts to do this). And I think that Larry is also right in that if a comedian presents things wrong, the audience can feel offended. But I also think that one of the brilliant things about comedy is that it can carry a message in a sugar pill. A comedian doesn't need to yell at the audience about how ridiculous double-standards for women are, she can instead write a sketch reversing gender roles in a hilarious fashion. As long as the comedy remains the focus, the message can come across. Throughout history, satire has always been a strong and hilarious force for change.
But anyway, that's enough serious thought for now. I have some jokes about naked people to go write.
