Link: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/28/051128crte_television
The New Yorker, world renowned for setting a high bar for pretentiousness, reviewed The Colbert Report when it debuted in the fall of 2005. Television reviewer Nancy Franklin takes time to highlight everything about Colbert’s show that people like and deem it ‘not serious.’ In her article she tells us how she much prefers Jon Stewart for his intelligence and politeness to his guests (which doesn’t always hold true, he has been uncomfortably merciless in the past). But I feel the thing that was getting old about Jon Stewart is that he makes sure to emphasize the big words he’s using while still slipping in fart jokes. Colbert is completely satirical, and instead of outright yelling at the politicians he’s trying to take down a notch from an ivory tower made of thesauruses, he holds a mirror up to them and shows them how ridiculous they are acting. I love Jon Stewart, but the high-handedness gets old, and instead of giving the people that are hurting the country someone or something to fight against and possibly gain momentum, the only thing Colbert offers them is themselves. The title of her column is stupid too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It's a close race, but I prefer The Daily Show. It's a testament to Colbert though that during the writers strike his show was still worth watching while Stewart's was crap.
it was interesting to see old perspectives on the show as opposed to current ones. i also really like your first sentence:). good job!
Post a Comment