Comparing Jack's Program to Today's Entertainment

[Roman]

I was thinking of comparisons between the Jack Benny Show and modern television and radio programs. Some have made a comparison between Jack's show and Seinfeld. The comparison has some merit because both comedies revolved around a gang of characters/friends and the absurdities of daily life. Both shows were extremely funny and well written. Both focused on the timeless comedy of human foibles rather than topical/political material or cartoonish physical gags (though, to be sure, there were occasional cartoonish physical gags on both shows - especially on Seinfeld). Even the characters on the shows had certain similarities. It's hard not to see the obvious comparisons between Jason Alexander's insecure, boastful, disaster-prone George and Jack's immortal character. Phil and Kramer; Elaine and Mary. The comparisons are there. Of course, Jerry Seinfeld's character was very different from Jack but there were some important similarities, first in the fact that Jerry was playing himself (sort of) and especially in Jerry's great timing and reactions to the other cast members. But mostly, the fantastic, character-driven comedy writing ties the two shows together.

Another Benny comparison can be made with Howard Stern. The writing and themes of both shows are radically different. But the revolutionary impact that both had on radio is undeniable. With due regard to extraordinary talents like Eddie Cantor and Al Jolson who dominated early 1930s radio, Jack Benny literally created the situation comedy. The writing on Jack's show was at a level never before seen on radio. By the mid to late 1930s, Jack dominated the ratings and he basically maintained his position at or near the top of the ratings for 20 years on radio and then (with some overlap) 15 years or so on television. Jack also helped change the relationship between entertainer and employer when he engineered his move from NBC to CBS in the late 1940s.

Like Jack, Howard Stern has dominated radio for more than two decades. Before Howard, radio pretty much consisted of DJs playing music or tired talk shows. Howard was a true original. There was no one like him on the radio. His brand of outrageous honest humor (frequently raunchy but always funny) revolutionized radio even more than Jack had done in his heyday. Other than a few tightly scriped shows (like Casey Kasem's America Top 40), the only national program carried by radio was the five minutes of news at the top of the hour. Howard was first syndicated in a few east coast markets in the mid-1980s and, by the early 1990s, he was pretty much covered in all the major markets. This was the same formula that later carried Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to their national success, but it was Howard who did it first at a time when there was great industry skepticism that syndication could work with radio. Now with Howard about to go to satellite radio, he will again likely be at the forefront of major economic changes in the radio industry.

As much as it might pain some to admit it, there are also some similarities between Jack's and Howard's programs. Both have a group of extremely talented supporting characters that allowed the star to shine by his interactions with them. Robin Quivers, Fred Norris and (my favorite) Artie Lang are every bit as funny and interesting as Mary, Phil, Don and Dennis. Unlike Jerry Seinfeld, but very much like Jack, Howard isn't afraid of being the butt of the humor (from his big nose to his little, well, let's not go there). However, unlike Jack, Howard is usually the one to point out his foibles. And, most critically different from Jack and Seinfeld, Howard's show is unscripted - and for four hours a day, five days a week. That's not to say that he doesn't have writers to work through ideas but, rather than simply reading a script, Howard and his gang, take the writers' ideas and improvise from them.

Jack Benny was the dominant entertainer for so long because he was a true American original. Jerry Seinfeld and Howard Stern are also American originals. Their dominance in our time is no accident just as Jack's dominance in his time was no accident. While our country is filled with entertainers and wannabe entertainers, there are only a few like Jack, Groucho, Lucy, Jackie Gleason, Seinfeld and Howard Stern whose genius and originality shake the foundations of American entertainment and restructure it in a new bold way.

[shimp scrampi]

Gotta disagree with this one. Sure JB and Howard Stern are both made successful radio programs and had/have a cadre of foils around them but for me the similarity ends abruptly there.

The Jack Benny program makes me happy to be alive. It celebrates our common humanity by showing, through Jack, our most vulnerable moments and lets us laugh with him in the face of day-to-day adversity. Jack was a hopeful man who was horrified by the thought of demeaning anyone. He wanted us to laugh together. The fact that I have met many people of radically different political and social philosophies who all adore Jack bring home to me what his true genius was. It was tapping into our common humanity.

Stern (not to mention -ack - Hannity and Limbaugh) pander to prejudices, our least noble instincts and go for the lowest common denominator of humor through shock and creating division and conflict. Hearing any of those guys makes me fear for the future of our society. I've got a pretty bawdy sense of humor that doesn't manifest itself on this board too often - I'm not offended that the material is blue - it is just that it degrades humanity and doesn't celebrate it.

Jack makes me want to go out and live and love life. Stern makes me want to turn the dial and take a shower.

[shimp scrampi]

Uh, that second-to last sentence should be "go OUT and live..."

LL, ever think of turning on that feature that lets us edit the posts? I try to preview...

[Roman]

I understand exactly what you're saying. Jack's humor is a very different and far more positive and humanistic than Howard Stern's. But it's hard to deny the huge popularity that Stern's engendered and obviously there are many people who find Stern to be very funny, even if his comedy is of a crueler variety than Jack's. There's also no question that Stern has brought a revolutionary change to radio programming (we can disagree on whether that change is a positive or negative one) and that his success has been nearly as long-lasting as Jack's, which again attests to his unique popularity with radio listeners.

As far as Stern's humor being uglier and more pointed than Jack's, I certainly agree. But I'd note that this charge can also be leveled at many of today's comedians, including David Letterman, Jerry Seinfeld, Jim Carrey, the Farrelly Brothers, and Adam Sandler. Indeed, a case can be made that Howard's humor paved the way for the likes of Seinfeld and the others, again for better or worse as to what it says about our culture.

We also shouldn't blind ourselves in a nostalgic haze about the good old days. Comedians like the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges were pretty rude in their own right. And even Jack's show stooped at times to the most awful racial and ethnic sterotypes; certainly common to that era but broadly unacceptable to modern listeners. I'm sure everyone here cringes at some of these bits.

Ultimately, it's impossible to prove who's a funnier or a better comedian. I can no more convince an Ashton Kutsher fan that the man has no talent, than that fan can convince me that Ashton's the greatest comedic actor of the age. But Howard's popularity with millions of listeners who turn on his program each morning is as undeniable as Jack's popularity with the millions who listened to him each Sunday evening.

[shimp scrampi]

We also shouldn't blind ourselves in a nostalgic haze about the good old days. Comedians like the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges were pretty rude in their own right. And even Jack's show stooped at times to the most awful racial and ethnic sterotypes; certainly common to that era but broadly unacceptable to modern listeners. I'm sure everyone here cringes at some of these bits.

What's remarkable about the Benny show is that at a certain point though, toward the end of the war - Jack and the writers made a conscious decision to stop with the stereotype material. Maybe they didn't always succeed 100% - but they saw the horrible, ultimate endgame of an ideology of division and dehumanizing 'others'/minorities as it played out in Europe under Hitler, and were thoughtful enough to say said "enough".

Stern however, just continues right along with humor mostly based on debasement at one level or another - women, mentally troubled people overweight people, whatever. I never get the sense he enjoys the strange people he features for anything other than their ability to provoke snickers and shock.

Some artists can be outrageously raunchy or grotesque but still celebrate the 'misfit' and the joys of being an "out of step lowlife" in society - filmmakers John Waters and Federico Fellini both spring to mind. You actually ROOT for the oddballs in their work - they're the "good guys". I get some of that same sense in the Benny show with the humor related to Phil Harris, for example. He's a sloppy drunk, but is joyous and unapologetic about his flaws - and Jack & gang accept that. (OK, I think I am now officially the first person ever to compare Jack, John Waters, and Fellini)

Not to get overly lofty or "offended" about Stern, for the most part I think it's just raunchy and going for the shock reaction - there's a place for that, and I don't think Stern is intentionally being cruel or hurtful, or has a sociopathic "agenda". Point taken that humor is a very personal thing - and he certainly has every right to air his show - and folks who enjoy it should go right ahead and do so. But "genius" is a pretty high standard. I'm convinced that Benny was one. Not so much with Stern.

[Roman]

We can debate whether Howard Stern, David Letterman, or the others qualify as comic geniuses. But we can all agree that Jack Benny stood far above them all.

You raise another point that is worth noting. You rightly condemn Stern for his, at times, cruel humor that laughs at, not with, the unfortunate in our society. This same charge can also fairly be leveled at Letterman, Adam Sandler, and many other modern comedians. Of course, this same charge was also made against the Marx Brothers (particularly Groucho) and could justly have been made against Fred Allen, Don Rickles, Shecky Green, Milton Berle, and many others from the pre-Stern era.

I recently heard Jack Klugman speak at an event promoting his book of reminisces of his friend Tony Randall. Klugman mentioned that he always insisted that the Odd Couple scripts have a love scene, by which he meant a scene where, after Oscar and Felix had had an argument, one of them would say, "You know I love you (Felix, Oscar), but . . . " Klugman felt strongly that good comedy requires this element of compassion, humanity, kindness, love so that it uplifts rather than debases. Jack Benny would have understood exactly what Jack Klugman meant. I'm not sure that Howard Stern, Letterman, and the other modern-era comedians (and a few of the old-timers as well), as funny as they are (and were), would have understood or agreed with Jack Klugman.

[Frank Nelson]

The biggest difference between JB & Stern(& the rest of the so called shock jocks) is that no one will talking about Stern 30 years after he passes on. If his ratings continue to slide, no one will be talking about him 30 minutes from now.

Crude humor usually doesn't age very well. Jack's humor is ageless since he never aged past 39!

[LLeff]

Shimp - I fixed that line for you...I'll have to look at enabling people to edit their own posts!

I think this is a really great, mind-expanding exchange. I've never heard anyone draw parallels between Jack and Howard Stern previously. I think I've only heard a bit of the Stern show once when I was driving between Chicago and Grand Rapids in the early morning hours, so I have to say that I'm not equipped to debate the comparison.

I was recently interviewing Rusty Warren, whom many will recall for her bawdy "adults only" records of the 1960s. I've been a fan of Rusty since my teens, and to echo what shimp said, I have a very bawdy sense of humor that doesn't show in the club too much. (Ask me about Tijuana Bibles and we can talk for a long time.) Rusty's humor at the time was rather shocking, but she was still a lady. Her humor lay more in the innuendo and double-entendres in the style of Mae West; e.g., "The only time I say 'no' is when they ask me if I've had enough!"

So I asked Rusty about her thoughts on the evolution of comedy from what she was doing to what there is today. She noted that everything is so "out there" that there's nothing to innuendo any more. But she also noted that comedy is also the mirror of the time. Comedians need to play to an audience, and the audience's tastes change over time. So Howard Stern is someone who apparently knows his audience and plays to what they want. Andy Kaufman is another example of a comedian who kept trying to push the envelope and stay one step ahead of his audience, and perhaps lost a lot of them in the process.

Jack often observed that the long-running gags on his show are the ones to which the audience reacted. I'm sure if the vault or the Si-Sy routine had fallen flat the first time it was done, it wouldn't have continued. The agent, Steve Bradley, or the recently-mentioned Carolyn Lee is an example of a character that came and went and seems not to have "clicked" with the audience. Some things become legendary, some become positively obscure. Howard Stern would have to make the same choices; if you continue to try to jam something down your audience's throat which isn't playing well, then you're going to lose your audience (like Kaufman). So Stern must be doing things to which his audience responds.

Which brings up the larger question that is occasionally posed: if Jack were starting today, could he work clean (or as clean as he did)? When he went to Las Vegas, certain jokes were added to his monologues like (quote approximate), "I was born so long ago in Waukegan, that our mohel (Jewish ritual circumciser) was an Indian. He used a tomahawk. I'd like to meet him today.........so would Mary." So even Jack didn't work completely clean all the time--he adapted to a Las Vegas audience.

OK, that's enough to chew on for now.

[shimp scrampi]

First, before I forget - LL - is your Rusty Warren interview slated for publication somewhere? I think she's great too! Hope she is well and in good health, etc.

I have no doubt that Jack in 2005 would include more risque material than the 1940s - and that's simply because that is the nature of modern conversation - no man is an island. To me, the difference is how sexually-oriented material is used - in that Vegas example, again, the humor is all directed at Jack himself. I couldn't imagine Jack ever bringing on some lewd version of the chicken sisters and making snide comments while they demonstrated pornographic talents a la Stern.

OK, bad mental image but you get the point.

Even the original chicken sisters bit, which could is about as mean-spirited as Jack got (with making fun of the overweight sister) - the overall humor of the piece is Jack actually considering/promoting such a low-rent, low-talent goofy act.

But I also agree with Frank Nelson - the risque humor - particularly "innuendo" dates badly because every comedian who really goes for it tries to "up the game" by being more and more graphic. So, something like "Laugh-In" and other shows of that era - considered provocative in their day - look almost infantile now - "Bippy"? "Whoopee"? "hoo-hoos"? An act using those words probably wouldn't make the "Tonight Show" cut. Ironically, I think comedy that talks more frankly about sex - but as a vehicle for discussing bigger issues of human relationships, etc - will be more durable than jokes aimed at getting an uncomfortable laugh by referring obliquely to various body parts and acts.

Another example - Redd Foxx's party albums, in my opinion - date really badly - because they're basically just about getting reactions from taboo words and discussing taboo things. Sanford and Son, however, which focused on Redd as a very human curmudgeon who used his humor and insults as a coping strategy for dealing with his family and friends - I think stands the test of time.

[Roman]

Our Frank Nelson wrote that "Crude humor usually doesn't age very well." I wonder though how true that is. Groucho's and Mae West's humor was pretty crude by the standards of the day (and the Production Code). When Groucho proclaimed in Duck Soup that they were fighting for Margaret Dumont's honor, which is more than she'd ever done, and Mae West asked Cary Grant to "come up sometime and see me," they weren't exactly in Ozzie and Harriet territory. Their humor was filled with sexual innuendos. W.C. Fields's humor often involved his musings about drowning annoying children (hard to get less humanistic than that). Need I mention the Three Stooges for their less than sophisticated comedy. And yet, these are the comedians we remember from the 1930s, along with the clean comedy of Jack and Burns and Allen.

I'd also argue that the often crude Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and Richard Pryor are still pretty well remembered and that their comedy is still funny today. We remember the campfire scene in Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles and the Orgasmatron in Woody Allen's Sleeper much better than most scenes from the clean family comedies then or later.

Now I'm not saying that crude comedy is better than clean. The key is whether it's funny. If it's funny, do we really care how crude it is? And if it's not funny, who cares how clean, humanistic and uplifting it may be? Jack was funny - period. The usually clean Alan King and Bill Cosby are funny. And so were the cruder Groucho, Mae West, Mel Brooks and Richard Pryor.

[Roman]

Alan King was, of course, a great admirer of Jack's and was always quick to credit Jack as one of his important influences. And Jack was one of the first (along with Ed Sullivan) to invite King to appear on his show. King was the father in many ways of the modern storytelling comedy style embraced by Richard Pryor, Robert Klein, Chris Rock, Bernie Mac, Jerry Seinfeld, and countless others. When Alan King died, we lost a giant.

[LLeff]

First, before I forget - LL - is your Rusty Warren interview slated for publication somewhere? I think she's great too! Hope she is well and in good health, etc.

It was broadcast on Yesterday USA, but I'll be excerpting her story about Jack in the next Jack Benny Times. She's doing well and living in Hawaii. Check her out at http://www.rustywarren.com.

You also brought up a point about comedy not aging well when it simply goes for the taboo subjects. To say the same thing a little differently, I think "shock" humor tends to date badly, because what "shocks" an audience evolves over time. Eddie Murphy used to get laughs--and maybe still does--by just saying various swear words. And once the audience gets used to hearing s***, then you have to up the ante and say f***, and then you have to up the ante again when that no longer shocks. I think the movies (although I never expected to discuss this here) Blue Velvet and Pulp Fiction are good examples of pieces that are so over the top with language and/or violence that you either get turned off by it or it desensitizes you so that you can get into the story. And at times it becomes a parody of itself because it IS so over the top. But by then you're laughing at the outrageousness of it, not the shock of it....sort of like the laughs at Jack's "but...but.....but" routine on this month's chat program.

[Roman]

Does "shock humor" date badly? Well, there was no one in the 1930s whose humor was more shocking than Groucho Marx and yet his humor holds up pretty well today. Is there anyone who would argue that Richard Pryor's frequently crude humor is more dated than the clean gentle comedies of the early 1960s like Father Knows Best? Is there anyone who finds nice, family friendly Herbie the Love Bug funnier than crude as can be Austin Powers or Animal House. The point is that many of our greatest comedians were and are crude, outrageous, profane, brusque, offensive, rude and, yes, funny. And often our cleanest safest risk-adverse comedies (The Patty Duke Show, Dennis the Menace, My Three Sons) are pretty lame in comparison.

Who are the clean comedians of today? Jerry ("Master of his Domain") Seinfeld? Adam Sandler? Chris Rock? Dave Chappelle? The fact is that there are no (Ellen DeGeneris may be one of the very few) clean comedians of Jack's type today. Are they all untalented shockmeisters? Some are (think Andrew Dice Clay) but most of them, especially the ones who've survived their first 15 minutes of fame, are plain and simple funny. If I'm wrong, then there are plenty of people out there laughing at a lot of unfunny would-be comedians.

Much of our discussion here rings of an older generation railing against the Beatles and their long hair and loud music. We may long for the good old days but there's plenty good around today too if you keep an open mind and know where to look.

[shimp scrampi]

Much of our discussion here rings of an older generation railing against the Beatles and their long hair and loud music. We may long for the good old days but there's plenty good around today too if you keep an open mind and know where to look.

Actually, we had a thread on this awhile back (it was called Jack and Timelessness vs. Jack and Nostalgia) - and I was pleasantly surprised that no one here was really a Miss Havisham blue hair just wringing hands about the "awful" state of modern entertainment. There's a wide diversity of interests here, and it's fun to see how all kinds of modern (and ancient) entertainment all relates back to Jack Benny.

As for the issue of "crude" humor - to me, it is a matter of - as you say, "is it funny" - and by "funny", that usually means to me it points out something about the human condition, through wild absurdity, poignancy, empathy, insight - whatever. Certainly any of these ingredients of "funny" can be put forth through the vehicle of "crudeness" - but you can also have just plain unfunny crude. The good "crude" examples you cite, Groucho, etc - fall into the former category.

But for some people, just the "football in the groin" that had Homer Simpson rolling in the aisles in one episode is enough. I'm not being judgemental on that, just saying for me personally, it isn't funny in the same way.

"South Park", for me, is a really schizophrenic example of these two kinds of "crude" - half the time it is achingly, brilliantly, funny-crude - and half the time it is just, well, crude - even from moment to moment in an individual episode. I love the highs but get numbed by the lows. I guess for a comparable Benny-period example, I'd cite the classic humor line drawn by the Three Stooges. You either like them or hate them. I actually like the stooges, but it isn't the finger pokes and head-butts that get me, it's the humor of aggravation and some of the puns and wordplay - but when that delicate balance goes off, it can be painful.

[Alan]

Hmm...this thread didn't give me the impression of any "darn those new-fangled Beatles, gimme the good-ole days" slants (and imo, i rarely percieve that in this forum).

My $0.02 in this already unwieldy thread: I agree that there are good and bad "schock" talents, good and bad "cleaner" performers and all points in between. I

I do feel that humor based on bluer aspects TENDS to become less amusing more rapidly and to a greater extent than that based on characters-situations....

For me, a current example would be the animated series "The Family Guy" ;1st and early viewings = i enjoy both the "wittier" aspects as well as the more grossout-violent-shocker stuff...But with repeated viewings, i still like alot of the (imo) sophisticamated stuff, but less of the gross-violence---some of the latter is still just good timeless comedy, even if alot doesn't age as well.

I don't think i am biased against more current performers: in prefering JB, or in liking some of the other "old" artists noted in this thread or that tend to come up often in this forum, i realize that i am mostly cherry-picking the very top classics.