I'm catching up on my Daily Show episodes from this week. That's *A* Daily Show,
as it's been renamed, not *THE* Daily Show - the distinction being marked by the former's lack of writers due to the
Writers' Guild of America strike.
I'm impressed. His first show sans writers was rocky and awkward, and he acknowledged as such.
His second show was good. It was sharp, it was funny and insightful. Granted, it would have been better WITH writers, but I give kudos to Jon for what he's doing. What I don't understand is HOW he's doing this. Clearly there's preparation, evidenced by the news clips and graphics. But it's allegedly with no writing, evidenced by the lack of script in his hand (making him clearly uncomfortable - he's used it as a prop for the last 10 years) and no teleprompter. Is it all adlibbing? How much preparation is acceptable until it becomes strike-breaking actual writing?
In the third episode he actually tells the audience that what he's doing is an "
MSTK" type thing - he picks out media clips that he's seen recently or know exist, has them played, and then riffs on them, semi-off the cuff. And it's pretty damn good. His strength is insight into the theatre of the macabre that is our news media, and that's where he pulls the best (and most frightening) humor. Granted, it's sprinkled with inane silliness, but let's give the man a break - he's doing the show without writers.
He does a particularly good bit mocking the media's coverage of Hillary "crying" - and follows it up with an excellent montage of presidents and politicians sobbing over the years. Apparently if a male politician (Bush Sr.) cries, it's moving and inspired. If a female politician looks remotely tearful, it's emotional manipulation. (
Bill Kristol can bite me.)
Jon's a little more cantankerous with his guests - not bitchy, exactly, and not rude, but definitely more willing to argue and mock their causes. He's less politely deferential then he has been in the past. When talking to
David Frum, who is advising Giuliani's campaign, he couldn't resist some pretty harsh (and deserved) digs on Mr. 9/11 himself. And I feel for the pollster to whom Jon says "polling doesn't matter." He does get the guy to admit that polling is basically a big crapshoot and wholly unscientific. He even has the pollster laughing as Jon says "I was expecting a bigger fight here!"
Fourth episode. Ouch. Starts it off with the report that "NBC expects to make a billion dollars this year in digital revenue." But of course those WGA writers are just greedy asking for a piece of that billion dollar pie. And after all, who needs writers.... Also some good digs at Bush's relationship with Israel (watching the Israeli PM extolling Bush's virtues, Jon muses, "I wonder if George Bush's ass is kosher?"
What these episodes do make clear is the truth of the fact that Jon Stewart is not just an "actor" on this show - he's a satirical analyst. He actually watches the news. He actually watches the media coverage. And he actually formulates intelligent points on various issues, albeit in a satirical fashion. In some ways I'm finding this better - there's actually LESS sophomoric humor, and more sharp humor.
.
amused
tired
blah
busy
stressed
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
under a black cloud