Those who can't do, become teachers. Those who can't teach, become critics. And those who can't cut it as a critic do what ever it is that Jason Zinoman does.
11
@Voice Once an artist puts their art out into the world, other people are allowed to react to it. Just because you don't agree with Jason Zinoman doesn't mean his opinion is less valid than yours. And just because he writes for the NYT doesn't mean his opinion is more valid than yours.
17
He’s a comedian who sometimes can reveal truths we might well have missed. To get to that you have to sometimes slog through his cruelty to some group or person he’s either soured on or never cared about. He has developed blind spots and, perhaps, as his wealth and life have become more fortress based, out of necessity, his empathy that often underscored his takes seems to have dissipated. Even given this as valid, which may be a stretch, he’s still capable of tremendous insights And wonderful silliness. However, his crutch seems to be to vaporize anyone who is making societal demands that he finds...Self serving. He’s more often right on target and So I am watching.
1
Being a comedian is tough. Some will like your jokes, some will not. And when you are so far off target that most of the audience walks out at intermission, that's gotta be a marker.
I've never cared for him, and even when he tells a variation of a joke I know and like, my humor center is overpowered by the person it is coming from.
He's got to make a living, but it is certain that all the adulation heaped upon him when he started to become a national star were misplaced.
Granted, it could just be me, but Carlin was superb. In their days Dennis Miller was worth tuning in to listen to for five or ten minutes.
I know people who just fawned over Letterman, who was in my view, one of the worst and most egotistical people to walk on stage. I get that tastes are different, and if it weren't for the fact that there is no right humor, I'd have to consider that I was wrong about Letterman's and Chappelle's humor. But try as I might, I cannot connect with and therefore be entertained by either of them.
8
I love Dave Chappelle.
Yes, he can be crude and cruel and sophomoric, and I laugh at his ridiculousness. Life is kind of ridiculous, though. Nothing is sacred in comedy. And most of his targets deserve his commentary.
But more than that he is a deep thinker, a student of history and someone who sees things for what they are and can narrate that vision in a very compelling, touching way.
He is a philosopher, a humanist, and a master story teller. That's where his genius lies. He's Plato telling a masturbation joke.
3
It's a shame. Block Party was charming, in part, because Dave reached out to so many different types of people to invite them to his party. Now he's hating and grousing like an entitled jerk, and his fans are rally around like MAGA chads, insisting on his right to be transphobic and dissing people who disagree. Hilariously how many people in this comment section are essentially spouting Fox News talking points.
Money does things to people, and it would appear to have ruined Dave Chappelle. There was a time I literally memorized his routines; recently I've stopped watching him altogether. A shame.
9
People nowadays complain about everything. Comedy is funny because your brain is surprised by the rethorics and images it perceives.
Predictable and politically correct comedians might make us less intelligent and more boring as a society, even turn us into some Pete Davidsons, some vindicative offended people pretending to laugh without a soul.
1
Looks like Chappelle is taking cues from the biggest joker of our time; Donald Trump.
6
The fact that clips of theisshow are getting 5 million views and going viral shows two things. First, critics, who give this show 0% Tomato-meter are totally out of touch. Second, that the far-left are so politically correct that they failed to realize that the majority black audience was responding positively throughout, pointing to their own tone-deafness.
We have now reached a point where the left's political correctness means nothing is acceptable unless it fits squarely into their narrow, political narrative. A scary world indeed if they replace Trump. Out of a terrible frying pan into and even worse fire.
10
@Roy P uh huh....the so called "far left" is not one big group think....unfortunately a lot of black people are seriously intolerant of gay people and not particularly supportive of women.
Beating up on two of the most vulnerable groups of people--by a member of another underdog group is not admirable or progressive, or funny.
16
Dave Chapelle is absolutely right! And I am so happy that one of the unintended benefits of his comedy special was to out all the media outlets that are pushing and agenda.
5
I know that most of today's egocentric thinskinners feel that it is their duty to police other egocentrics with opposing views. Ironically they have become the same folks that were in fact the real police busting up Lenny Bruce shows. The loud chorus of "who is Lenny Bruce?" is not surprising. By the way, if you want to get on a comedian for not being funny, when was the last time Bill Maher made someone laugh?
4
Richard Pryor on critics:
"I never met anybody who said when they were a kid, "I wanna grow up and be a critic."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/aug/09/comedy.edinburghfestival2004
I am glad that Carlin and Pryor did not start their career in this era!
8
@Mayank Shreshtha yeah...except Pryor was funny....and bisexual, did ya know? He didn't have to ridicule one or two targets to get laughs.
9
@Linda Does ridiculing white people not count? he did that a fair bit.
3
@Suil "Does ridiculing white people not count? he did that a fair bit."
How about providing us with a few salient examples of his "ridiculing white people," Suil. Clearly, the shoe certainly pinches, when it's on the other foot.
"No one has demonstrated the comic potential of punching down better than him. But the bar for such jokes is higher, and he doesn't scale it."
A very important part of this review, seemingly read by no one in this comment section.
15
@Julia Breakey
who exactly is setting this bar, was there a vote or a rule saying comedy is expected to follow this arbitrary level of non offensiveness?
10
@Julia Breakey Agreed. Lots of dumb and/or cheap shots. My husband and I, who have always enjoyed Chappelle before, stopped watching 15 minutes into his Netflix special, and won't be coming back.
10
@Julia Breakey
I am still very lost on this idea of "punching down". If he had taken a side or didnt support or sympathize with their movement then yeah I could understand. He simply says he finds their situation funny and and persist to make more light hearted lazy jokes about them. By making trans people off limits or some protected class their osterization will persist. Everyone else can be made fun of but god forbid you talk about trans. That just give them a bigger target if they are just like everyone else let them be like everyone else and take the jokes in stride. Because after all it is only a joke.
5
"The comic hasn’t adjusted his material for the setting"
Nor should he. The show is called "Dave Chappelle on Broadway" not "Jason Zinoman in the Audience."
For whom is he supposed to adjust? Is he to tailor his comedy to the Group-Think Standards-of-Approval Board?
Mr. Chappelle is not only a comedian, but he is brilliant social critic whose intelligent writing compels us to think--and to laugh endlessly! That's the point of comedy--subjects are not to be off limits.
I saw this show and Jon Stewart did the opening act for Chappelle where Mr. Stewart made jokes about his Jewish experience, about gay-marriage laws, about an entire sundry list of "charged" subjects. And the material was brilliant! And all of it makes the audience think about the topic in a new light through the vehicle of humor.
At the end of the performance, (during the Q&A portion of the show) Mr. Chappelle answered questions and explicitly said his job is to push boundaries in his humor, not to give in to moralizing. He reveals his humanity in this section and it was uplifting to hear him speak seriously about what his comedy means to him, and how he lives it. As he said, "I'm not running for congress--I'm a comedian."
The show challenged the audience and it was worth every minute.
36
If people pay hundreds of dollars for old jokes they can see on youtube they’ve got too much money.
6
@CitizenTM, it is noteworthy that the more time we enjoy spending on our iPhones and watching more and more Tv choices with just our family at home - we've seen that we also seek experiences laughing, cheering, and experiencing live events, and are willing to pay more for that experience. To be in the room with others who have made a specific point to be there together and share an experience.
I remember I the early 1980s when theater prices went up $2.50 and the feeling was who's going to be willing to spend $20 - to sit and watch anything for 2-1/2 hours. Will people pay $20 to see Liza Minnelli (that was each ticket, BTW) in "The Act." By "42nd Street" David Merrick had raised the price to $35 (I guess in honor of its director Gower Champion's passing away the day the show opened being front-page news?) and price hikes never looked back, even as video stores had entertainment so convenient and available for $3.
Mr. Zinoman reviewed a show quite a few years back called "Old Jews Telling Jokes." It ran a long time across the street here, like a revue of jokes you heard before on late night TV, and the show made you laugh with others who also knew the jokes, but you never laughed at them live in a theater. Live onstage is just different.
1
Free speech chained by Communist China or wokedness, is not free. If comedy is not free, nothing is...
9
This headline, and the authors picture - with his big curious haircut, elicits some sort of deep anger in me. The anger is not strong enough to produce modivation to actually read this article. I don't know if anything would be.
5
@Brian,
On “Mary Tyler Moore,” which can always be relied on to have covered any social issue, Mary was complimented on how her hair looked, and the guy insisted on keeping the conversation going and asked her what does she call what she does with it. She said, “I don’t know, I guess - combed?”
What is upsetting about that haircut? That he's probably never going to go bald? If the comment moderators are going easy this morning on anything related to hair - here are my thoughts on Will Swenson crawling all over our row during the Diane Paulus HAIR revival.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQQnN5liEAw
(The more you acted like you preferred he not give you a lap dance, it seemed the more likely he was to do it - never breaking character, of course. I’m not complaining, it’s just always great to re-live it.)
(PS My feeling has been that the full “Big River” book from the 1980s, revived so beautifully on Broadway in Michael Arden’s production about 14 years ago , was simply more artful than the book Encores did in 2017. The point is Encores did an adaptation in 2017, and that’s what was presented for review and $120 a ticket by Encores - not the original musical's book from the 1980s, certainly not the Mark Twain novel. And that Frank Rich, the revered critic who was Encores head Jack Viertel’s college roommate, spread that attack on a fellow critic's job credentials far and wide, is just strange or worse. But this weird use of the Times comments to question the qualifications of the critic, rather than discuss the work, seemed not to exist before 2017. I keep getting the feeling many of these are coming from people sitting in producer's offices, but genuinely moved Times readers - they never seem to appear except when big money is behind the shows.
The Joke is old!!!? Maybe you’re old, old in your thinking all this political correctness from the left and from small minded critics is threatening free speech...glad Chapelle has a forum on broadway none the less where he can make people laugh in your face :)
9
Is there something about critics in the internet era that makes us treat them like we know them? Maybe I am old, but weren't Clive Barnes and Frank Rich treated like journalists who just happened to have reviewing as their specialty? Recently Stephen Holden - and in music today, Anthony Tommasini, aren't they celebs like Maureen Dowd and Frank Bruni? Comments are talking about locking eyes with a critic at Encores so they knew they're at the same performance, or someone talked about sitting a few seats from Mr. Zinoman also so couldn't imagine they weren't experiencing the same show. (I was sitting three seats from Bob Hope and Robert Goulet at "The Little Foxes" and I'm sure they and I had a different experience; for one thing, they got a standing ovation when they took their seats and I didn't, and at intermission, Zev Bufman didn't come over and ask if I'd like to see Liz after the show. Patricia Neal did hear us talking about how amazing she looked and waved at us, though.)
1
I love it when the woke turn on their own. The unspoken secret is that it's not the material or what people say. The woke have declared a war on straight men. Their existence make the woke feel "unsafe". And thus, we uncover the chief reason why Trump will win reelection. You heard it here first!
11
@MJG does this actually make sense to you? Who are the woke? I'm a straight man and don't feel there's a 'war' against me although, sure, there are some new develpments in how people are judged that can be good but can sometimes also be bad. I think you may be right if you are saying that issues like trans rights and metoo stuff could sway the election if they become the focal point of democratic policy voices. ps: i heard all this here months ago, so, no, you were not first with this commentary.
My main takeaway from all this is how incredibly thin-skinned, churlish and nasty Dave Chappelle fans are. Kinda validates much of Zinoman's critique.
While one can be both funny and a "chose your target"-phobic creep, the latter really doesn't excuse the former, since being a creep isn't an essential element of great comedy. Richard Pryor and George Carlin spring to mind.
I'm trying to picture what the commenters here would make of a white comic who mocked and denigrated blacks and latinos in his act----but was incredibly funny while doing so. I wouldn't pay to see that, but, whaddaya think?
10
@maxsub
It seems like you’re accusing Chappelle for being [fill in the blank]-phobic while not having seen the show and relying on one interpretation; this review. And you’re also denigrating an entire fan base while asking the question, while blaming those fans for enjoying a comic that allegedly denigrates another group.
Well, the review is far off the mark, as I’ve seen this show, and hundreds of comedy sets in NYC alone. And, yes, there are great “white” comics who make fun of black, latino, and all cultures, in a smart way. And people fill MSG or other theaters to see them because it’s not just funny, it brings people closer together through laughter.
6
@maxsub : "a white comic who mocked and denigrated blacks and latinos"
Who is the white comic who does _not_ do this, maxsub?
We're gatekeeping humor now too I see. Someone should tell this guy that people who are offended by everything tend to be a bit more on the draft side.
10
Mr. Zinoman, I was at the same show you reviewed. In fact, I think we were sitting a few seats apart. I find it troubling how despite being in the same room we had very different experiences.
I will agree with you that Dave Chapelle has and did that very night talk a lot about the trans community. However, I disagree that there was nothing new in the material. As usual, Dave Chappelle tries to send a deeper message through his humor, and the message he sent (and that he said) was that he wished he could see the world as a trans man or woman could. That is, "seeing people for what they are on the inside and not on the outside." Chappelle said that such a world would be "beautiful."
What differentiates Dave Chappelle from other comics is that he doesn't devolve into shock humor without a thoughtful analysis and explanation. If you look at any of his Netflix specials or watching the show I saw on Tuesday night, you will find an honest brilliant comedian trying to get us to think seriously and laugh at the world around us.
With this comment I'm not trying to bash you Mr. Zinoman, but to tell anyone who reads your review that you got this one wrong. Go see the show! You will not regret it.
32
It's telling that Zinoman thinks so little of transgender people, he doesn't think they can handle a joke. Trans people are not delicate flowers that need to be protected from the world; they're human beings, and are as rich a source of humor as any other group. Zinoman is perpetuating the soft bigotry of low expectations. Treating people with kid gloves is far more offensive than any joke you might tell about - or to - them.
20
@Doc Rob - I thought the country had settled this when there was a pretty extensive discussion that it was Ok for Gilda Radner to make a joke (on the Garry Shandling Show) about her own battle with cancer, but no one else has that right. A while later, that it's Ok for Jay Z and Kanye to use the N word, but not for Paula Deen (and more recently Bill Maher) to do so.
It feels like we're regressing, and not just since the 2016 election.
5
@Freddie. Not quite, Freddie. Dave points out this exact point you’re making and how ridiculous it would be if comics only talked about their “own” because what does that even mean in a world that’s ever more mixed. And can Dave get a pass on certain Asian communities because of his wife? And what about his half black half Filipino kids? Just because you allege America agreed on a construct for joke telling doesn’t make it right. America agreed the construct of Jim Crow era south was okay, and no one admitted it was wrong we wouldn’t have Dave (or me typing to you now).
5
Amazing Chapelle show, he transformed the 1500 seat theatre into a small comedy club achieving the mammoth task of shrinking NYC in the most uplifting way. NYT do not underestimate the audience, we can recognize the breadth of a joke vs a precise humanitarian/political stance. Anyway I think this review may free up more tickets for us folks with less $$$.
I luckily got an orchestra seat for $100 yesterday outside the theatre, thank you NYTImes! Good luck Chapelle fans, don't miss this show. Promise!
8
We can all agree that the idea of "appropriate taboo humor" is an oxymoron, right?
Someone mentioned Rickles. If we judge past comics based on today's standards, how many would be left standing? Dangerous road to go down....if you don't like it, don't pay for it.
2
I agree with the author that a star such as Chappelle should not strive for cheap laughs by mocking a much less powerful group such as transgender people. However, referring to Louis CK as a "wealthy, famous peer" reflects shallow journalism and pandering to MeToo (an overdue movement which should not want to be pandered to).
Louis CK--before wealth and fame--was a writer for Chappelle, which Zinoman should know, but does not mention. "Defending an old friend you think has been unfairly treated" may not score the political points "defending wealthy, famous peers" does, but would be more accurate regarding CK. Has Zinoman never defended a friend who is being criticized in a manner he thinks unjustified or excessive?
9
@DSM14, regarding "Has Zinoman never defended a friend who is being criticized in a manner he thinks unjustified or excessive?"
You know something, as much as I've wished his reviews (like all the reviewers) have been different over the years once in a while - I'd bet that if he ever did this in private over dinner with friends (and I suspect he never did), that Mr. Zinoman has never ever done that for "a friend" in a review or on a panel stage in his job capacity. (I can't find it - but I recall it was on a panel Ms. Collins-Hughes was on: there was an agreement among the critics/press onstage that the needs of the artist and reviewer roles are necessarily at odds, almost that the reviewers' role going way way back has been to honestly (based of course on their honest opinion, which must be subjective) hold the artists to account for how they did what goes into their work.
4
@DSM14
I agree. We should be punching up, nit punching down. We should speak truth to power. This is why I support mocking Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.
5
@Freddie I appreciate your input, but doubt that, for example, if asked at a panel about a Times colleague's work, or a fellow critic's work, he would offer any negative opinions, even if he believed strongly they were justified.
How often have you read of a critic saying anything stronger about a colleague or another critic than a mild "I disagree"?
"The comic hasn't adjusted his material..."
Since when do critics get to dictate the terms of expression?
Behold, a white newspaper trying to silence a prominent POC. Tell the truth, this was never about social justice.
10
nytimes, you missed the point again... he is actually funny!!
10
Yall have finally become parody's of yourself.
Now going after successful Black Man.
You can never be left enough for the NYT and Woke Culture.
As a great President once said... What is the difference between a Liberal and a Cannibal? The Cannibal doesnt eat its own, it only eats its enemies.
No, it wasnt Reagan, Bush or even Trump. it was LBJ
5
NYT still thinks David Letterman is funny.
That's all now.
Chapellle is funny, and the only reason stereotpyes are funny is because they're usually true.
3
@Erica Smythe
Thanks for the input here, but Dave wasn’t simply “stereotyping” the LGBTQ community. Stereotyping, while originating from somewhere, is open mic beginner humor for people getting comfortable on stage in backrooms of bars, and if people never rise above it they’ll never be great at comedy. Dave is a master of this craft and presents a point of view through humor, which is what the best comedians do.
1
My alternative headline after reading this review and the comments:
Dave Chapelle on Broadway: Characteristically Iconoclastic
The writer (but not the audience!) is offended because Dave Chappelle, a comedian, does not share the predominant opinions of the NYTimes Editorial Board
8
What a waste of a seat at a Chappelle show!
17
Based on the negative comments about the review and support for Mr Chapelle, I’d say if these were the notices from the author’s Broadway performance, it would close after one night. Or in modern terms, this article appears to rate 7% on Rotten Tomatoes.
4
@Chris W, it's impossible to look at things from a percentage point of view. People who agree with a review, or who are just idly looking for what to see, tend not to comment at all. When I read the print paper, I don't feel what I feel any less, but I don't go to the computer specifically to make a comment - but if I'm reading online and the comments are right there, of course I will. In busy tax season for me (March to mid-April, then mid-August to mid-October), I feel just as strongly about subjects, especially in the Metro section but reviews too, as I feel in May, June or July, but it's impossible to comment in an office situation. And also, when someone else has made the same point I was going to make, I hit recommend but don't say it again. And for some reason I can't figure out, my Blackberry has stopped letting me comment at all.
BTW, while I'm not saying all producers have shills writing in favor of their shows, it's clear Broadway and arenas are a very high-stakes business. Even in a small-dollar world, I'll tell people for my $4.99 books or $20 CDs, if you feel you can give 4 or 5 stars, please chime in on Amazon; businesses selling $250 to $600 tickets have much more incentive on a wider scale if they feel that will sell tickets.
(Someone else mentioned critics should report crowd reaction - but the seats around critics have been filled for decades with friends who know why they're there. Audience reaction on press nights is almost never real.)
Pretty disappointing stuff from the NYT. Since the writer is equating Chappelle's "punching down" comedy to his jokes about transgender people, wouldn't that indicate that the writer sees transgender people as weaker, or at least easy targets?
Isn't it more problematic that we're starting to say, "No, you cannot joke about this", rather than being able to see the funny side in things?
Rather than freedom of speech getting old, this continuously toxic culture of attempted censorship through outrage is getting old. The bar for writing in the NYT used to be much higher, what a shame to see it drop so low.
10
And how did the audience respond? From the fact that Mr. Zinoman doesn't use their reaction to support his own take, I think we can assume that the audience liked it better than he did.
Dave's newer stuff derives a lot of its humor from the star's disregard for political correctness, which is funny because it twists woke commentators into knots. Is he allowed to say that, or not? He's rich (boo), but he's also black (yay!).
10
These are jokes. Lighten up. We used to be able to laugh at ourselves.
9
He is a comedian. They make fun of all people including themselves. That is how comedy has always been, and always should be in the future. Comedians are not politically correct, they are not "woke", and they do not care if they offend you. They are there to make you laugh. If a comedians words truly upset you, the issue is with you and not the comedian.
6
Comedians aren't philosopher kings or legislators-- they're comedians. It often seems like Zinoman forgets this fact. This review reeks of all the things Chappelle railed against (justifiably) in his former "criticism" of the culture that surrounds certain views on all this stuff. Namely, that it reeks of white privilege, and that those who write these sorts of reviews are so wrapped up in the "progressive" ideology their paper supports that they forget what the point of comedy is.
5
The critic's entitled to his opinions but this overly-fussy dogma about what's acceptable to skewer and what's out of bounds leaves me uneasy. I loved Don Rickles. The guy was FUNNY. And he was also a one-man wrecking crew who mercilessly went after people based upon their race, ethnicity, religion, sex, the way they looked - you name it, he'd go after his target. And yet it was done with fun, not malice. But just imagine the "s" storm that would erupt if he were starting out today with that brand of humor.
It's our loss.
6
As a trans woman it is tiresome and sad to be beat up on endlessly. We are people and this is no celebration of our humanity or any such nonsense. We need to work, eat and live and constantly mocking us kills our chances of doing so in any normal way.
7
@Julie C. As a heterosexual I agree... Why am I made fun of soooo much in comedy? Oh yeah... it's comedy... everyone gets made fun of...
5
Being a snowflake is no way to live. It's honestly better to toughen up a little. Life will become far easier and a lot more enjoyable.
6
This is a well-written, insightful review. Regarding many of these comments -- It's a contradiction to question the critic's right to critique a comic, while defending Chapelle's right put his ideas on stage. If Chapelle wasn't questioning his material being a little tired, why would he stay another hour to try out new material? Most comics hit the old haunts to do that and don't charge audiences upward of $250 to mine the audience. Chapelle and some of his ardent fans might think nothing is off limits in comedy, but only the box office knows for sure. I and many others will not pay money or give attention to jokes about rape.
10
@Ann He didn't try to test new material. He didn't have anything prepared in advance for the extra hour. I was actually there and the extra hour was him riffing on topics yelled out by the audience.
1
@A Maybe you missed my point. If Chapelle were not trying to develop new material he would not have stayed to 'riff on topics yelled out by the audience'. I'm not criticizing him for that, although many comics are burdened with hitting the road to do that, but with fame comes privilege. I am saying I will not listen to jokes about rape -- I don't think there is anything funny about it.
1
I liked the Chappelle Show ("White Power!"), but he lost me with his (HBO? Netflix?) show about two years ago, when he closed with a lame hypothetical about a man who had done amazing things (fought crime? cured cancer?) but who also raped women. The idea being, that we should excuse the rapes because this man had otherwise made significant contributions to society. "He did rape, though." (mic drop)
Chapelle's defense of Michael Jackson makes me wonder if he has more in common with Jackson than skin color.
There are tons of hilarious comedians out there who don't condone rape in their acts. I don't need Chappelle's "humor" anymore.
58
@Miss Dovey Such preciousness! Nothing is out of bounds in comedy; that's the point. If it's too much for you to suspend disbelief then don't watch.
9
Chappelle says he is not in “the being right business.”
Well, I am no longer in the supporting Chappelle business.
22
@Pam I don't think he really cares Pam from Alabama. Don't think you're his target demo.
23
You showed him. Not that he’d notice.
27
Criticism is fine and valid. But the intense focus in the media on policing the speech of comedians in particular seems suspicious and somewhat dubious. It seems to me that it's "consolation outrage" in a society where major political and economic decisions are increasingly outside the control of normal people/the masses. Focus your outrage on the things you think you can make an impact on, surely, but don't neglect the real problems because it's easier to yell at a comedian.
11
So, according to this critic, jokes about transgender people should not be permitted. Any other subjects that can't be joked about? Can we have a list? Political correctness is a scourge on comedy (and on society in general) and I for one am glad that Mr. Chappelle continues to joke about whatever he wants.
37
Dave Chappelle reminds me of a modern day Mark Twain. Like Twain, he cleverly pushes our buttons to help us look at learned behaviors and ideas that we perpetuate in the name of conformity.
When asked why does Mark Twain’s humor still make us laugh? Jerome Loving of Texas A&M responded:
“…when you analyze humor, you often kill it. But the best kind of humor is pretty serious, and his jokes go to the roots of human nature. It's humor that doesn't depend on its own time. It's universal.”
I believe Mr. Chappelle’s humor will be with us a long time - just like Mark Twain. Thank you for pushing our buttons with humor Dave!
21
@David Dave Chappelle is no Mark Twain. Twain wrote ground-breaking novels and short stories, was a journalist and inventor, and a mined his experience as riverboat captain. Faulkner called him the "father of American literature."
6
I hate that this reporter gets to tell us about a show that most people don't get to see. If you ask 50 people about a comedy show you're going to get 50 different opinions. Why do comedy show reviews at all? If you didn't find it funny that's it. If you do, that's it. But when you write about a show that very few people get to see and you see it courtesy of your job, why are you trying to craft the general public opinion about something before they get the chance to experience it?
Why dirty the opinion of a show? If it's a comedy special then fine. But it's a very expensive exclusive show. Some of us would like a chance to review it for ourselves and then take your opinion into account.
5
@Curtis Sumpter I was actually at opening night. This review is pitiful at best and I'm sure the author was laughing along with the rest of the theater but has to play PC Superhero in this article. I highly recommend the show, please go if you get an opportunity. You will not be disappointed.
3
I read this review and then went to the show the next night. I have never commented on a review in my life, but this is so sub-par NY-times quality I felt like I had to. As almost all the other comments here point out, nothing in comedy is off limits. But what really depresses me is that Zinoman really fails to realize that comedy itself is a bridge to a better social understanding of all these topics, IMO. Chappelle made fun of himself as a black man, as a rich man, as a heterosexual man, and trying to find the humor in other peoples race, sex, misgivings, etc. is what good comedic writing is about. Also, he's the world's greatest comic, he can say things other people can't. Zinoman doesn't understand or respect this.
40
There are some salient points in this review, but one can't help but think Zinoman is all too eager to beef up his "hey I love MeToo, too" credentials. Jason: take a deep breath. Don't operate on a fear that lends itself to pandering. It's not a pretty sight.
22
Paying hundreds of dollars to see any comic is outrageous. I have better things to spend my money on than see a "live" comic act. It's better to watch on the telly anyway.
4
I was in the audience on opening night. The set was not sub-par. We all filed out of our seats, because the show had ended. It was amazing and we were all so happy when he came on and did more. I'm going to venture to guess the critic went in planning not to like it, which is your prerogative, but this does not match my experience or the vibe in the room!
19
Such preciousness. Nothing is out of bounds in comedy; that's the point. If it's too much for you to suspend disbelief then don't watch.
16
Instead of illuminating readers on the long history of comedy’s “theatrical lineage”, the author simply refers us to a podcast. This is pathetically out of touch with the Times’ core readership - most frequently working professionals - who don’t have time to listen to a podcast simply to illuminate a writer’s point. Therefore, it is ironic Zionman speaks of how out of touch Chapelle is for talking about flying private planes, while in the next breath simply strings the reader out on a podcast adventure, which surely no one other than a comedy critic in their mother’s basement has time to listen to.
4
@Dan, regarding "the Times’ core readership - most frequently working professionals" - you can't go by the number of comments in the Theater section, unless it's a social issue like diversity in Radio City hiring or a front-page story with international human implications like the "Mockingbird" rights issue and oppressive lawyering. Take a look at the Politics section even right now; there are readers who take time to write learned essays, just to put them in the Comments section and get a conversation with other Times commenters going, and it's thrilling to read what some just regular readers are thinking. Sometimes over a thousand comments, and I bet they'd go higher if the Times didn't at some point decide it's time to close this thread, and thus guide people who want to make their thoughts heard on this subject to a more up-to-date article.
Admittedly, I haven't heard any of Chappelle's trans jokes but the writer's effort to categorically rule them out of bounds strikes me as priggish and counter to the irreverent spirit of modern comedy. In between the desire of the truly tiny trans community to be treated with respect in the public square and the absurd pretensions of a few very loud activists to reorder society around the priorities of postmodern critical gender and queer theorists, it seems to me their is a lot of grist for great comedy. The only consideration I want to hear is "is it funny?"
Its interesting how for decades culturally liberal comedians mocked middle class propriety and religious hypocrisy mercilessly and congratulated themselves for being edgy and transgressive for doing so but when the subject became left-liberal intolerance, their courage all-too-often deserted them. What gives?
47
@John Murphy Would have been more interested to read your article on shifting liberal sensitivities than this NYT opinion piece that covered no new ground.
I saw both of Chapelle's 2017 performances and found that his critique of #metoo was both funny and grounded. He did not mock all victims (yes, there was mocking), but highlighted the chief criticism of a welcome, long overdue movement: that victims who feel forced out of comedy after a gross encounter with Louis CK and victims who were forced into Harvey Weinstein's bed are not the same, and to treat them the same is to disrespect some victims' struggles while promoting "a brittle spirit"; and that punishing a tone deaf commentator (he used Matt Damon as an example) the same as an actual offender (like Weinstein) risks alienating potential supporters and allies (all men).
If you are confident and well-researched in your beliefs, you can stand up to any criticism, especially these softball viewpoints Chappelle is tossing into the conversation. Who would genuinely argue against nuance?
9
Every time I see Chappelle on tv he is stoned.
He was stoned when Colbert had him on. He speech was very slow but he seemed to keep it together. Imagine how funny and interesting he'd be if he was straight.
4
Haven't people who go to these things have better things to do, such as organising the broom cupboard or sock drawer? Or what about cleaning out the gunk trap on the washing machine? As for the 250 bucks, surely there are homeless people who would value the money?
4
@G Rtayns Nah, they already did those things as an alternative to watching Trumpalooza on July 4.
4
I would absolutely fly commercial if that meant not having to live in Ohio.
9
@D priest
I’m glad I live in a country with a First Amendment.
1
I met Dave Chapelle while shopping for shoes in LA a few years ago, before his comeback. We talked for about 10 minutes, I did not even recognize him for the first 8 minutes or so, just thought he was another average customer like me, but very funny (yes, I am bad at recognizing famous people). He was totally down to earth, humble, and not even remotely elitist or snobby as many other celebs can be. I cannot speak to this comedy set, but as a person I found him in that brief interaction to be extremely nice and a very cool guy. Perhaps the illusion of intimacy that current comedy styles embrace is so compelling that we forget that these are just performances by an actor, it really is not the person per se...
27
For the life of me I will never understand why anyone cares one bit about the opinion of film, art, music, comedy, culture et al critics.
I only read this because of Chappelle’s name not the writer.
I have seen DC many times as well and yes he does say outrageous stuff.
He’s a comic. Wake up or stop going to his shoes or get another job.
55
@Futbolistaviva, regarding "For the life of me I will never understand why anyone cares one bit about the opinion of film, art, music, comedy, culture et al critics. "
In the case of this show, even mediocre seats like row Q are priced at $250 or more, and that has a lot to do with some acts wanting reviews, and even the most subversive-sounding acts and performers wanting to compete. [I really enjoy that spellcheck just asked me if I meant to say "medicare" rather than mediocre. After feeling like I was in the oldest 1 or 2 percent of the crowd when I saw "Tootsie" or even 'Moulin Rouge," that it was taking me just a bit longer than everyone else to stand to join that surprise "Bad Romance" ovation, I actually think it might be fun being one of the youngest at "Barry Manilow" next week.]
7
@Futbolistaviva
I enjoy reading reviews and especially appreciate the context they provide. Reviews will often influence whether or not I see a show.
6
@Futbolistavivawell stated. This article isn’t about DC. It’s about LBGTQ. Frankly, who cares?
5
"Defending Louis C.K. limply" is a rather interesting/clever turn of phrase, considering Louis C.K.'s transgressions and all.....
25
@Patrick LOL
One of the oldest rules of comedy: nothing is sacred. Doesn't mean it's right but it's part of the profession.
50
I think this columnist is forgetting that Dave Chappelle the comedian is not the same person as Dave Chappelle private citizen. The Dave on stage is a persona and something this author omitted is that often times Dave takes an aside to point out how he actually feels apart from the joke itself. This is comedy! It's an act. It's a show. It's art. Please step off your high horse, what are your comedy credentials anyway?
28
to read a critic's review and then asking what gives them the right to express their opinion reminds me of an old sitcom moment where the witness in court is ranting a confession and turns to the person with the gavel and the robe and screams, "Who are you to judge me?"
I admit I've given more ticket money to this Lunt-Fontanne line-up than is right given my reservations about using four months of a Broadway theater this way (where are the penny slot machines and the five-dollar blackjack tables?). But it recalls that William Goldman line in "The Season" where a business friend of his was asked if Judy Garland at the Palace was theatre.
"Theatre?" the pro said. "Is this theatre? You bet ... it's theatre. It sure as hell ain't singing."
11
Zero. He fancies himself an aficionado, and found this kush best at NYT.
That Theatre Talk episode is on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=uBeflXFkM3I
I guess I plotzed at "This is not going to end well" at 13:00 when u first heard it, but no one there did. And she did say whatever she feels about "Hadestown," she's glad it's there as sign of diversity in theater.
Interestingly, Adam Feldman (head of the NY critics circle) does the comic riffs less than everyone else, but when he sneaks in a good one-liner, it's really good. (And Musto is great in case you missed The Ferryman - though I'm biased, since an article where he mentioned something I did about Katy Perry was on my folk's fridge in Brooklyn for a year.) Then, the second half has the group where Mr. Zinoman co-hosts with Susan Haskins. Mr. Brantley is also part of that one, along with Jan Simpson. And everyone's funny, like they love theater - The Algonquin Round Table couldn't have been better, but some of it is just too good not to have been scripted. (And Mr. Green really should bury the hatchet and do an interview with the 'Margaritaville" bookwriters, once enough time has passed. That could be a real laugh-fest. But that's just my opinion.)
If you can’t laugh at a well-told, deeply offensive joke aimed at you, you’ve misunderstood the cathartic, transformative power of comedy. Eventually, we’re all the butt of the joke.
61
Lighten up! It’s comedy! When did certain topics become verboten in comedy? Wonder if Carlin could survive the scrutiny today? Probably not. this over the top analysis is over done.
70
@HistoryRhymes yes!
4
Hear, hear!
1
Like the article suggests, Dave has been making similar jokes throughout his entire career (right or wrong), but I wonder why only now people feel so strongly about them, or where these same critics will be in 15 years while Dave tells the same jokes on yet another big stage to mostly laughs. Hopefully, by that time they will have chosen to leave their money in their wallet.
10
@Tone Most people mature. Dave seems unable to do the same.
14
I'm annoyed by all these columnists who are self-appointed tastemakers talking about comedy. Dave's show on Broadway is performance art to boot. So your criticism is misplaced and more dimly lit.
60
@Mrs. Sofie "self-appointed"?? He was hired and assigned this position by the New York Times, and as been established as a critic here for years. It's not as if he is writing on medium.com or something. Would you suggest that Robert Ebert was a "self-appointed" movie critic?
32
@Mike M
Excellent point. To all you fans of Dave whose feelings got hurt:
Zinoman is a well-regarded critic, appointed by one of the leading newspapers in the world, and doesn't have to prove his credentials to a bunch of know-nothing readers who hate it when their guy gets even mild criticism. Zinoman's analysis is based on years of watching Chappelle and other comedians, and it's spot on. You needn't define for him what's comedy and what's not. Thank you.
24
@Little Doom Excellent point. To all you fans of Zinoman whose feelings got hurt:
Dave is a well-regarded comedian, loved the world over, and doesn't have to prove his credentials to a bunch of know-nothing critics who hate it when their guy gets even mild rebuke. Dave's comedy is based on years of observing people and actually performing comedy, and it's spot on. You needn't define for him what's comedy and what's not. Thank you.
16