
Monday Aug 30, 2010 – By
The Grio Last night saw the airing of the 62nd annual prime time Emmy awards.
The critically-acclaimed comedy 30 Rock was nominated for “Best Comedy
Series” for the fourth time in as many years (it was unseated from its
throne by the new series Modern Family). The increasingly popular show
features the talents of Emmy winners Tina Fey, Alec Baldwin, and nominee
Tracy Morgan, who portrays a character known as Tracy Jordan, a rich
black comedian known as much for his childish antics as his broad
comedic abilities.In this setting, Jordan is used as a satirical look at black
actors/comedians and their behavior in the white-dominated entertainment
industry. He often complains of racism, indulges in debaucherous
behavior with strippers, and is accused of fathering children out of
wedlock, among other things. The character has been simultaneously
criticized and praised–at times being written off as another
stereotypical representation of black men and a brilliant use of satire
to observe and send up the way Hollywood views and treats black
celebrities. With 30 Rock entering its fifth season, I think about the Tracy
Jordan character and its longevity in comparison to other popular
satirical representations of black life, namely Chappelle’s Show, which
went off the air after two seasons, and the recently wrapped animated
series The Boondocks, which managed to last three. I have to wonder if
the Jordan character can maintain its freshness, humor, and bite or will
it meet an early demise like that of its satirical brethren. And that
leads me to the larger question: is black satire built to last?
Consider Chappelle’s Show. After two hugely successful seasons which
propelled Dave Chappelle to “funniest man in America” status and set
records with the DVD sales. But with a new $50 million contract in hand
for the production of a third season, Chappelle bolted without warning,
taking a highly publicized and rumor laden trip to South Africa. In his
first interview after returning stateside, Chappelle spoke to Oprah
about his decision to quit the show. Part of his reasoning was that
during the filming of a sketch in which faeries encouraged various
people of different ethnic groups to participate in stereotypical
behavior, Chappelle noticed a white crew member laughing in a way that
made the comedian uncomfortable. He said it was at that moment he felt
he was doing something “socially irresponsible” with his art.
But Chappelle wasn’t doing anything different than what his prior
work would suggest. The difference, as William Jelani Cobb, a professor
of history at Spelman College and author of the recent book The
Substance of Hope: Barack Obama and the Paradox of Progress, noted in
his 2006 essay “The Devil and Dave Chappelle” was the audience. Where
the first two seasons spoke to an audience that was “in on the joke”,
the audience that tuned in after the infamous Rick James parody was a
bit less savvy and aware of Chappelle’s intent in using satire. Were the
original audience could appreciate the nuance and sociopolitical
underpinnings of the “Black Bush” sketch in which Chappelle imagines the
backlash that would be received had former President George W. Bush
been black, the new audience seemed to only respond to his less
intellectual work. And rather than play into that and become the very
thing that he was attempting to skewer, Chappelle left.
(Continue Reading @ The Grio…)
Comments Policy