WSJ on Borowitz, then I opine for a bit

The WSJ has a rather bland, inoffensive article on Andy Borowitz's web site, The Borowitz Report. Once, when I was interviewing Henry Beard and Ron Barrett, I asked Henry if he thought there was another Robert Benchley out there. What I was getting at was how the economics of the business today encourage anonymous sitcom/latenight/H'wood hackery at the expense of prose humor. He said something like, "If there is one, it's Andy Borowitz." I don't visit The Borowitz Report regularly--as with The Onion, I can't have somebody else's jokes bouncing around in my subconscious--but the excerpts suggest that Henry could be right.



One of the things that's made clear in the article--which Henry also made clear--was that AB has already made enough money in Hollywood so that he doesn't have to write anything if he doesn't want to. This mega income may contribute to AB's lack of a angry attitude towards the world. Believe it or not, I think this is good--there's plenty of angry humor in the world, and there's room for bemused, relaxed, stuff that's simply designed to produce a harmless, freeing laugh.



But there's a danger to this, which is writing a lot but not saying much. Once again to bring up Henry Beard--who, after all, was Borowitz's mentor and sometime writing partner (must be something about guys from Ohio)--in another interview, Henry's said that while he may have a certain gift for saying things, he doesn't really have much to say. I don't believe this. I think he's got a lot to say, but for whatever reason doesn't feel like saying it through his humor. And that's a shame, precisely because he's so gifted, and so many less gifted humorists seem compelled to say things constantly.



One thing about Benchley, or Perelman, or Thurber, or Wodehouse--all those humorists before the Age of Anger--while you knew they would stay firmly within the bounds of decorum, there was no doubt that they were trying to communicate a very definite, very personal idea: a view of the world which was their own (and inherently critical, gently or roughly so). You can't polish a mirror without grit, and that's why so much of the "comedy" produced by Big Media reflects so poorly on everybody involved. It may be lucrative but it isn't worth anything.



Would "Young Frankenstein" have been so funny, without Mel Brooks' obvious personal attachment to the subject? YF isn't angry, but Brooks' personal investment encourages us to love those old movies, too. The same could be said about pre-Annie Hall Woody Allen. There is a generosity there, and a committment to precision, that is essential. It's fine to create disposable comedy--and by fine, I mean, not punishable in a court of law--but if you had the type of skills that Beard or Borowitz have, WHY?



I've always thought that Beard has a bit of grit in his work, simply due to the generation he belongs to. You can't have worked with the people he did for as long as he did, in the times that he did, and not have some anger seep in--it comes out primarily as a sharpness. Borowitz isn't so lucky, I think; Beard is Harvard '67, Borowitz is Harvard '78, and the difference between those two micro-eras is perhaps the difference between the writers.



It is one thing to be a sunny person who writes humor, but it's quite another to refrain from using it as a means of communication, simply out of the habit of pleasing a large corporation's preconceptions. So I would hope that both Beard and Borowitz--precisely because they can write whatever they like--would occasionally reveal themselves, and their anger, in their work. I have a feeling it would produce some really spectacular stuff.