An Interesting Critique of Dane Cook

ShadowBoxing

Avenger
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
30,620
Reaction score
2
Points
31
Who I don't really find funny myself...this article really sums up my feelings and I think makes some good points.

the middlebrow: Dissecting the mainstream.
Dane CookInsert punchline.

By Bryan Curtis
Posted Friday, Oct. 6, 2006, at 6:46 PM ET



As anybody who watched Gallagher smash watermelons can tell you, comedy is a niche business. But lately a few niche comics, who in another life would have been confined to working auto shows, have become rich comics. This year's comedy concert box-office champ, with nearly $400,000 per city, is Larry the Cable Guy, the noted Southern philosopher. Whatever his charms, Larry will not be mistaken for Jerry Seinfeld or Bill Cosby. Exhibit B is Dane Cook, an aggressively unshaven, 34-year-old comic with hair styled like a yucca plant. Last year, Cook's second album, Retaliation, opened at No. 4 on the Billboard album charts—the biggest showing for a comedy album since Steve Martin's Wild and Crazy Guy (1978). Cook hosted the season premiere of Saturday Night Live, where he had the opportunity to play Saddam Hussein; he has a new film, Employee of the Month, in which, as he has pointed out on his Web site, his name appears above the title.

A native of Boston, Cook is nonthreateningly handsome, with soft, feminine features and unexpressive brown eyes. Onstage, he keeps his lower body rigid, squatting on his haunches and striding stiffly across the stage, while his torso remains loose and willowy. If you listen to his albums—Retaliation and his debut CD, Harmful If Swallowed (2003)—you'll hear a man who sounds very much like a small boy regaling stories to his friends. Cook's repertoire includes self-generated sound effects like primate shrieks; tales of pre-adolescent terror, like glimpsing your father's genitals; and pure nerd fantasies, like being abducted by a UFO. The audience, a mixture of men and women, shrieks with self-congratulatory delight.

Cook is what is often called an "observational comic"—someone who points out the absurdities of modern life and heightens them to comic effect. In his case, all the observations concern the plight of twentysomethings. In describing fights he has with women, for example, Cook will call them "mental terrorists" and "brain ninjas" who are unwilling to lose. Then he'll strike the pose of the aggrieved female—legs locked, head turned to the left—and in a singsongy voice begin to recreate the woman's rant. In another bit, Cook describes the difference between crying in front of your mother and your father. For Cook (again posing and doing cartoonish voices), Mom is all warmth and assurance, while Dad is reminding you of his experiences in Korea.

Perhaps because of his album covers, which feature Cook looking smug and *****ure, he has been incorrectly labeled a "frat boy" comedian. But frat boys, at least the ones I have had the pleasure of knowing, do not practice observational comedy. They tend more toward the savage put-down and the menacing attitude regarding friendship and sexuality. (Think David Spade or maybe Vince Vaughn.) If we're to stick with collegiate metaphors, Cook is more like the harmlessly affected guy who lives in the dorm room next door, the one obsessed with UFO abduction, killer-bee attacks, sexual humiliation, clubbing, hot chicks, and the other predilections of youth. (He's like the guy who's always trying to show you something he found on the Internet.) Cook's jokes often begin with "this is what everybody does when …"; he's a generalizer rather than an advocate of a particular (or particularly crude) worldview.

What explains Cook's rise? Partly it's his relentless salesmanship. In 2002, he spent more than $25,000 to erect an eponymous Web site full of interactive features, including regular "Danecasts." His shaggy legions grew, and now his MySpace page has tallied more than 1.5 million "friends." ( "yo Dane, it's Red... i know you've been pissed bout people callin ur phone and stuff, but if you get a call from a 420 number you should pick up. i'm cool man, no BS or anything.") Instead of affecting an air of detachment like some comedians (or even outright disdain for the audience), Cook is legendary for being a mensch: signing endless autographs at shows and returning his fans' e-mail. Other comedians "went out and partied when the show was over; I went home and updated my Web site and e-mailed people," Cook boasted to the New York Times last year. "A lot of people thought I was wasting a lot of time and energy, but I saw results immediately."

There's an inherent problem with Cook's act, however: There's doesn't seem to be anything at stake. Not every comedian needs to be explicating a high-minded moral code (like, say, Bill Hicks) or a blessedly mundane one (like Jerry Seinfeld). But every great comic must use his act to create friction—some value must be rubbing up against another value. When Cook begins to crack wise, he seems merely to be describing the benign hang-ups of the college/post-college set rather than actually weighing in on them. In Retaliation, for example, Cook confesses that he desperately wants to own a pet monkey. He would give the monkey a sword and dress him in a suit of armor, he says. "How pumped would you be driving home from work knowing that some place in your house that there's a monkey you would battle?"

Give Cook points for giving voice to the secret dream of 22-year-olds across the land. (It's like Dane knows me and my friends!) But once you've passed the age where you're charmed by the comedy of recognition, you realize that Cook doesn't add very much value. There's no philosophy underlying the joke, even a goofy dorm-room philosophy. So, why do we want monkeys, exactly? Why not some equally exotic creature? Is this why we constantly fail with girls? Dude, hello?

As someone who styles himself as a voice of a generation (he likes to speak in the first-person plural), there's little sense that Cook sees himself operating in opposition to anything or anyone. (He hates topical humor and doesn't mention current events.) And even if we accept Cook as a chronicler of post-adolescent males, Cook often misses the mark. It's true, as Cook jokes, that at the end of every movie trailer we must weigh in on whether we think the movie will be any good or not. Cook also says that whenever another car cuts us off on the road, we always say, "Um, hello…" We do?

Cook is an undangerous comedian posing as a dangerous one. In fact, the only time he betrays angst, generational or otherwise, is a semigrammatical mission statement he printed on his Web site. "I will make it with pride and without being a f****** ******* or a side stepping cheating *****e bag," Cook wrote. "I won't take cheap shots at others that have earned more than me and I won't judge those with less. Who gives a fruit flies balls about what anyone else is saying about my path and me. I'm on it and you know this is leading me somewhere that's why you nip at my heels."

Spoken like a true comedian! Sadly, Cook's act bulges only with self-satisfaction. The secret of Dane Cook's outsized success is that he's not really a niche comedian at all. He's a comedian your mother could love.

Basically if you want it broken down, his act has little substance and does not take many risks.
 
he hosted SNL and 2 minutes into his dialog i wanted to slit my wrists...

the guy couldn't make me grin even if I was pumped full of laughing gas.
 
I watched a bit of his crap on HBO. He was just ranting about nothing and the crowd was laughing like psychos. :huh: :dry:
 
"When Cook begins to crack wise, he seems merely to be describing the benign hang-ups of the college/post-college set rather than actually weighing in on them."

That's why he's popular, so, yknow.
 
I always wonder why the audience laughs at him. "Are they on something" I think to myself, "did he pass out some form of laughing gas or maybe pot to the audience".

I can concieve of almost nothing that would make him funny to me.
 
kypade said:
"When Cook begins to crack wise, he seems merely to be describing the benign hang-ups of the college/post-college set rather than actually weighing in on them."

That's why he's popular, so, yknow.
Actually I think if you read the article in full it makes a much stronger point: he is popular because he relentlessly sells himself.

Plenty of comics talk about hang ups of twentysomethinghood. But Dane will actually go out a do a ton of footwork on top of it.

I almost see it as if I kept complimenting everyone on here to continue some "Hype popularity", and just kept doing it until I won everyone's affections. I would not mean I am funny, or smart or even have merit.
 
blind_fury said:
Aw cmon. He's not that bad.
I mean he is not unwatchable, and actually a poster under the article said he might make a good talk show host (which I think has some truth to it). But he is mediocre a best, and is way to popular for being such.
 
he's not that funny..and his random psycho movements annoy me.
 
Yeah, Dane is alright. He's overrated, but he's not that bad. I still see alot better comedians on TV every week and they're not seeing half the money Dane's been getting..

-TNC
 
He's a young guy. There is time for him to get better. I want him to be more vulgar, and curse more, like Robin Williams and Lewis Black.
 
ShadowBoxing said:
Actually I think if you read the article in full it makes a much stronger point: he is popular because he relentlessly sells himself.

Plenty of comics talk about hang ups of twentysomethinghood. But Dane will actually go out a do a ton of footwork on top of it.
The point of the article is basically that quote - that he's "all style, no substance." My point is that's why the people that enjoy him do enjoy him. what makes you laugh more when your hanging out with a bunch of friends? Repeating something funny and exaggerating and making different voices for different people, or trying to relate the same situation with some kinda over-arching philosophy or whatever? Yknow? He's familiar to these college kids cuz he's saying the same stuff they say every weekend in the same style. It doesn't hurt that these people really do find him charismatic and friendly and that they feel important as his fans cuz he DOES sign autographs and run his own website and such. That's why I like him (though I'm not a huge fan, really) - he just seems like a good guy, and it's alot easier to laugh at the kinda stuff he says that I relate to coming from someone I tend to like than to laugh at a bunch of anti-bush jokes from some old man.
 
Well, let's see... a comedian who allows his audience to turn off their brains while he does his routine...

No wonder he's so popular with teenagers.
 
farmerfran said:
He's a young guy. There is time for him to get better. I want him to be more vulgar, and curse more, like Robin Williams and Lewis Black.
You see I like the idea of him switching mediums. Because he has a ton of charisma and charm as a person. I think Talk Show Host is a much better fit. I would also support him doing some TV show or something allong those lines.

And he would still make a good Deadpool.
 
I can see him as a successor to the Late Late Show or something of the like. He'd be perfect at that.

I like his comedy... his energy and charisma just make me enjoy it. "Harmful If Swallowed" was a good debut, then "Retaliation" was even better.

Give him time! He'll improve.
 
kypade said:
The point of the article is basically that quote - that he's "all style, no substance." My point is that's why the people that enjoy him do enjoy him. what makes you laugh more when your hanging out with a bunch of friends? Repeating something funny and exaggerating and making different voices for different people, or trying to relate the same situation with some kinda over-arching philosophy or whatever? Yknow? He's familiar to these college kids cuz he's saying the same stuff they say every weekend in the same style. It doesn't hurt that these people really do find him charismatic and friendly and that they feel important as his fans cuz he DOES sign autographs and run his own website and such. That's why I like him (though I'm not a huge fan, really) - he just seems like a good guy, and it's alot easier to laugh at the kinda stuff he says that I relate to coming from someone I tend to like than to laugh at a bunch of anti-bush jokes from some old man.
My friends and I never talk like Dane, in fact as the article points out college comedy is much more like Vince Vaughn (I would argue more like Denis Leary...although I am from Boston -- so is Dane though). We bust balls. Say lot's of inside jokes or stuff like "that's what your mom said". That's not like Dane at all.
 
kypade said:
The point of the article is basically that quote - that he's "all style, no substance." My point is that's why the people that enjoy him do enjoy him. what makes you laugh more when your hanging out with a bunch of friends? Repeating something funny and exaggerating and making different voices for different people, or trying to relate the same situation with some kinda over-arching philosophy or whatever? Yknow? He's familiar to these college kids cuz he's saying the same stuff they say every weekend in the same style. It doesn't hurt that these people really do find him charismatic and friendly and that they feel important as his fans cuz he DOES sign autographs and run his own website and such. That's why I like him (though I'm not a huge fan, really) - he just seems like a good guy, and it's alot easier to laugh at the kinda stuff he says that I relate to coming from someone I tend to like than to laugh at a bunch of anti-bush jokes from some old man.

Don't stereotype us college students :cmad:
 
Eh, haven't seen too much of Dane, but I did see that "HBO: Vicious Circle" special he had a few weeks back, and I had a ball watching that.

So uhh..whatever. I liked his jokes. :o
 
farmerfran said:
It all boils down to opinion!
I don't know about all that. I mean there was a guy on this place a while back...I don't have a picture (if someone could post one) who we affectionately named "James Bald". He contended he was better looking than Brad Pitt and most of the actors to portray Bond (except Connery...I think?). Now he was wrong, and had serious self delusions according to most here. However I suppose you could also say well it all comes down to opinion. But does it really. I mean there have to be some criteria by which you judge things if not some higher standard.

So I think maybe it's opinion to a point, but (and not necessarily pointing out anyone on this thread) you cannot go around saying he is really great or anything extrodinary.
 
Well it's less of an opinion, and more of a fact, if a great majority agree upon it. With that James Bald situation (I still think it was some guy pranking his friend, who was the guy in the pics), it's obvious he wasn't better looking than a lot of the actors. Basically no one agreed with him.

Dane Cook however has a huge fanbase, so that can't be applied here imo.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"