News & Politics
A Comedian's Defense of Letterman, in Two Parts
Allison Silverman explains why Letterman's confession was an anti-joke.
People get into comedy because there’s somebody they want to make laugh. Usually they do this with jokes. This is not so true of David Letterman, who, deep into his wind-up Thursday night, confessed that he has had sex with women who work for him, and was just blackmailed. Part of what’s made Letterman a revolution is that he does it with anti-jokes. He made jokes that don’t work funnier than jokes that do. When Letterman advertises a segment as being “for your enjoyment,” you get the sense he’s telling you it’s not worth doing and, therefore, the fact that he’s doing it is funny.
Letterman uses dramatic words and undersells them. He builds vast structures and theme songs around purposefully underdeveloped bits. In a fondly remembered ‘80s bit, Letterman created a catchphrase contest that featured people issuing lines like the winning “They pelted us with rocks and garbage,” delivered by two teens in a monotone. They were then challenged by the likes of “Too much lotion!”
Lately, Letterman has been doing a segment called “Is This Anything?”, in which he frontloads the concept, telling the audience that what they’re about to see “could be a singer, could be a banjo player, could be a pianist, could be a ballet dancer. ... Could be anything.” When the curtain’s raised, there’s a woman with four hula hoops, a woman with a power tool, and a man jumping on an orange exercise ball. Afterward, he and Paul agree that they don’t think that was anything.
So we are used to Letterman creating a context for something big to happen and then humorously undercutting our expectations, which is exactly what happened Thursday night. When he tells us that someone has proof that he does “terrible, terrible things,” “embarrassing, terrible things,” "quite a lot of terrible stuff," and “creepy stuff,” we are eagerly anticipating the anticlimax of the event, which, in this case, is the fact that he slept with women in his office. What could be less of a story than plain old heterosexual sex? Letterman breaks the tension and gets a big laugh and a round of applause.
This is something I imagine some audience members are not proud of in retrospect. But is this anything?
Raise the curtain on a man with millions of fans who was unfaithful to his wife. Personally sad? Absolutely. But for the rest of us is this anything? Unless these women were harassed or pressured, no.
Now raise the curtain on the other player in this scenario, Robert Halderman, who was indicted for attempted blackmail of Letterman. Halderman is a producer for 48 Hours, which recently broadcast hour episodes titled “Our Father, the Godfather,” “Seven Days of Rage: The Craigslist Killer,” “Kidnapped,” and “Invitation to a Murder.” According to its website, this Saturday’s 48 Hours Mystery will enlighten us with the story of a mother and daughter “taken hostage, strapped with dynamite and forced to rob a bank.”
A producer working for years in a news environment that sells sensational crimes on Saturday nights is charged with one of his own.
Is that anything? I’d say definitely yes.
SNL: Equal Opportunity Objectifiers
Jon Hamm spent most of the Saturday Night Live episode he hosted last night shirtless.
Confessions of a Woman Comedy Writer
Allison Silverman accepts one from New York Women in Film & Television (and tells us why it's rare).
Comments
What a strange essay
By: Donna Barstow | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 17:05
Because David Letterman has a feature called is this anything? doesn't mean this is a good hook for his 2 night now confession: both that he had affairs, and that now he is having problems in his relationship with his wife. Convenient, but not applicable.
A comedian, writer, or anyone in show biz should have learned by now that there is a line between public and professional life, and just because viewers tune in for one doesn't mean they want to hear the other! Ewwwww!
Letterman used his audience in the most despicable way: as a way to promote his own agenda and push his own take out there before anyone knew what was happening. The audience was piffle, unnecessary: he used his desk and position as a way to get free air time on a network, and to air his dirty laundry. Ugh.
My Slate cartoon on him is here: http://opedcartoons.com/2009/10/06/david-letterman-starring-in-the-inven....
Oh, How I Love a Womanizer
By: Laura KW | Tue, 10/06/2009 - 14:55
If you watch Letterman (I do), it's quite obvious he digs pretty girls. Ever see the episode where he had a sexy girl from a Gap commercial enter at his cue and wriggle her hips back and forth across the stage? No shock he's been dipping into the company ink.
But what's curious to me is how these guys have so many women not only willing, but at times, dying to sleep with them. Why do women love womanizers? Check out my post, "Oh, How I Love a Womanizer" and see if you agree:
http://tartandsoul.com/2009/10/04/oh-how-i-love-a-womanizer/
No, he didn't demand better of others...
By: nagatuki | Mon, 10/05/2009 - 09:41
To the poster who thinks he has been on some sort of holier-than-thou platform, please look again.
Making fun of politicians and celebrities caught in lies is not the same as "demanded high morality of others;" it's called stand-up. If you don't understand it perhaps you should go back to the kiddie pool.
And agreeing with another - Letterman only married his long-time girlfriend _this year_, and by all indications these "affairs" were in the past. I know we like to think of them as exactly the same as affairs married people have, but they're entirely different.
They could even be why he and his wife didn't marry sooner, but it certainly doesn't hold the same weight as, say, a married man running off to Argentina on Father's Day while his _four_ children wonder where he is.
Enough with the drama; this isn't a story.
Letterman's affair ended
By: stand828 | Sun, 10/04/2009 - 21:46
Letterman's affair ended before the birth of his son in 2003 and long before his marriage earlier this year, so to say he was unfaithful to his wife is incorrect. Personally sad? No...
Letterman should do what he demanded spitzer
By: patron002 | Sun, 10/04/2009 - 01:56
Letterman should quit. Funny he demanded high morality of others, but did not achieve the same goals for himself.
Dirty old man used fame to get laid
By: patron002 | Sat, 10/03/2009 - 23:53
Who cares? I do think its funny that we punish the weak and reward the powerful. These women were basically prostitutes, their attempt at extortion was probably closer to asking for additional money after services rendered than true blackmail. I almost feel that blackmail that does not involve illegal activity should be legal. Celebs sometimes pay mags not to print certain pictures, or pay a person not to give out information, should that be considered blackmail? Really I think blackmail should probably be legal when it does not involve illegal activity. I mean who cares if they told everyone they were having sex? It wasn't against the law... Letterman should have told them to go ahead and tell. Instead they were arrested, because they threatened the reputation of a rich person.
On the article
By: Corey Griswold | Sat, 10/03/2009 - 16:56
Nosmiley has a terrible reading of Silverman here, and to accuse her of writing in jealousy is to both indict her and the editors of Double X. Would they ask her to write if all she had was an ax to grind?
Let us read more carefully what she has written rather than thumb through her history in Wikipedia. Comparing his jokes and delivery to what he said on Thursday is interesting. It certainly implies that he absolutely knew what he was saying and how he was saying it. It also implies he was putting it into a position to where it would seem benign to as many people as possible.
The contrast to Mr. Halderman has clearly escaped Nosmiley. Using the titles of the previous episodes of 48 Hours is a way to demonstrate that he has crossed from what he usually covers to what he has done in his own life. The idea here is that Halderman is the real story, not Letterman.
I'm curious about Halderman, too. How did he think he was going to get away with this? Why did he reveal himself so readily instead of concealing his identity? Did he just assume that Letterman was going to fork over $2 million ($2 million!) without going to the D.A.?
For a guy who covers these kinds of schemes for a living, that's a lot of mistakes.
A Comedian's Defense of Letterman ?
By: nosmiley | Sat, 10/03/2009 - 12:27
I read this article twice, thinking I had missed something major the first time. It's a very well-written piece, but I have points of concern and questions.
Wikepedia and other sources make no mention of Ms Silverman being a comedian, but rather a writer of comedy and executive producer. There's a big difference between a writer and being a performer. Famous comedians have dozens of writers, that never are on stage.
The article seems like something written for a university class. More of a good, in-depth definition of Letterman's style. I find very little defense of Letterman, but perhaps even support for Robert Halderman.
Learning Ms.Silverman's background, plus the accepted definition of "defense" indicates the piece has very poor title. Perhaps the defense of Letterman will come in part 2.
Mr.Halderman's attorney says his client is "not the bad guy here",he and Ms.Silverman should note that Halderman left the courthouse in handcuffs, while Letterman did not.
Finally, Ms.Silvermans' background mentions her being executive producer of several shows. Exactly what is an executive producer? Referring to Wikipedia again, I find that it is a position that is "conferred" upon a person, and "very difficult to define". It can be "someone that has no direct input into the creative process." Or can also be a fancy term for being the head writer, suggesting it can be defined however you wish. I thought so. I conclude from the article that Ms Silverman wrote this piece, expressing anger, hostility, or jealousy at David Letterman. What do you think?