Killing Him Softly: Comedy Central’s DVD Depiction of Comedian
David Chappelle as Television Auteur
Shelley Jane Graff
Northern Illinois University
Killing Him Softly: Comedy Central’s DVD Depiction of Mr. David
Chappelle as Television Auteur
In 1946
at the beginning of the Cold War, Max Horkheimer wrote that: “Language has been
reduced to just another tool in the gigantic apparatus of production in modern
society” (p.22). Nearly seventy years
later, and an infinitely greater potential for people to communicate later
these words still seem to ring true. All
too often controversies in public culture appear to be largely framed by the
corporate interests involved through various forms of media. In the case of comedian Dave Chappelle, and his
sensational disappearance/departure from the set of his hit TV show to South
Africa in April of 2005 (just a month before his third season was scheduled to
start), the heat fell on the cable network Comedy Central.
Various
reports said he had checked into a mental hospital, he had partied too much or
he had considered the material subpar.
But Chappelle told Time
magazine he had gone on an unplanned ‘spiritual retreat’ and was ‘definitely
stressed out.’ He promptly fired most of
his handlers and never returned to the show.
(Levin, 2006, p. 01d)
Dave had previously expressed
frustration with how his show was being produced via commentary he made on and
during the filming of seasons one and two.
He mentions everything from working twenty-hour workdays on the DVD’s
commentary—to joking in a sketch (in which Chappelle, upon impregnating Oprah
promptly goes and quits his job at Comedy Central) that he absolutely disagrees
with the company’s use of the slogan “Still Dangerous” on an advertisement to
describe him or his show (Chappelle, Brennan, & Armour, 2003). In said bit Chappelle is shown cackling at
the idea that nobody even asked his opinion about the poster’s catchphrase/overall
design—finally screaming at the office: “I’m not dangerous!” Yet, upon his return to the United States
following his two week hiatus in South Africa, Chappelle addressed the country
about his decision to walk away from the show by giving a few key
interviews—namely—the televised interviews that he did with Oprah Winfrey (on
her show—The Oprah Winfrey Show) and
James Lipton (on his show—Inside the
Actor’s Studio).
In these
interviews, he explained his reasons for leaving, citing further issue with the
show’s production company as well as doubting the ethical responsibility of the
show’s humor. On Inside the Actor’s Studio:
Chappelle said that pressure to produce new sketches that
went against his Muslim beliefs, and the realization that his racially charged
comedy was too often lost on an audience a little too enthusiastic about
repeating the N-word, also added to his decision to walk away. The comedian said the time away from the
spotlight has given him some perspective on both the show, and racism in
Hollywood. (Hazlick, 2006, p. 1)
He did, however, express a
willingness to come back to finish the third season if—and only if—a
significant portion of the DVD’s sales went to charity, and Comedy Central did
not air the material that he had worked on for said season (as they had been
advertising that they were going to do) (Winfrey, 2006). In fact, during his televised “…interview in
January [2006] with Oprah Winfrey, he blamed his exit on creative interference,
which Comedy Central and [co-writer] Brennan denied, and said he would go back
to work if the network allowed him to donate his paycheck to charity” (Levin,
2006, pg. 01d). Despite Comedy Central’s
supposed willingness to bring him back at any time, not much else was said about
the matter by either party (Chappelle or Comedy Central). Eventually, the message became loud and
clear: a compromise could not be reached…Chappelle’s
Show would be made no more. In an
effort to save face, Comedy Central would go on to collect the scraps of
material that Chappelle had left behind and mash them into a truncated third
season they dubbed the “Lost Episodes” which meant publishing a new DVD as
well. This essay will argue that Comedy
Central used their final Chappelle’s Show
DVD release as a rhetorical means of defending themselves. More importantly, they used the DVD’s
rhetorical potential (through the included extra material) as a means of
defending their reputation (maintenance of which directly impacts their financial
interests) which had been threatened by the comedian’s actions and
statements. They did so by defending
Dave’s credibility as a larger-than-life auteur persona and defending his
decision to leave, while simultaneously alluding to the fact that his concerns
about the show were understandable but ultimately misguided. Instead of directly addressing the negative
statements made by Mr. Chappelle, they skirted the issue and in reaffirming his
status as an auteur, the marketing masterminds at Comedy Central responsible
for the DVD’s configuration, effectively ‘killed him with kindness.’ This seemingly passive-aggressive approach
was in their best financial interest as they had to put the entire truncated
third season and associated DVD together without Mr. Chappelle’s
blessing.
Comedy
Central had previously established Chappelle as a bona fide comedic icon (a
sort of commercially viable famous face to capitalize on—a kind of modern day
“capitalist’s auteur”) who was wholly representative of their brand,
particularly following the success of his DVD sales; even repackaging the DVDs
in an effort to hone in on that which made the show so popular.
“I think
what we set out to do originally was to harness the incredible power of brand,”
said Peter Risafi, senior VP brand creative and creative director for the
network. “The show has been such a
milestone for Comedy Central and for television; it was a reinvention of sketch
comedy—completely courageous and brazen.” (Qtd. in Estrin, para. 3)
Chappelle’s seemingly
infinite appeal seemed like a blessing for the network. Chappelle’s
Show played an enormous part in propelling Comedy Central in to the mainstream
media big leagues. Then, just when all
seemed to be going exceptionally well for both Comedy Central and Mr. Chappelle
himself—disaster struck. Comedy
Central’s proverbial “cash-cow” jumped ship; initially only to disappear
briefly from the United States, but ultimately, Chappelle would walk away from
the show for good. This essay will
explore how David Chappelle was portrayed on the final DVD as a misguided, but
undeniably brilliant auteur by the same company that he found to be so
disagreeable. What incentive motivates a
business to exalt the man who had so recently cost the company potential
millions and millions of dollars in revenue by committing “media mutiny?” I aim to explain such a maneuver is a
commercially motivated tactic; one intended to quell audience concerns about
the part that the network played in the circumstances leading to the show’s
abrupt end by killing the show’s host seemingly with nothing but endless
kindness.
This essay extends the critical engagement of the DVD and
its various extra text features through an examination of the DVD version of
the television show Chappelle’s Show. First of all, I will provide a historical
account of the circumstances surround the production of the DVDs in
question. This is followed by a
discussion of auteur theory, and its potential connection to
commercialism. Finally, I will offer an
analysis of extra text features included on the Chappelle’s Show DVDs in which I will examine how these features
serve to construct Dave Chappelle’s auteur persona in such a way as to promote
Comedy Central’s business interests by allowing the company to make face in the
end.
So, He
Went to South Africa—As in AFRICA - Africa?
After record
DVD sales of the second season of his show, Chappelle’s
Show, comedian David Chappelle decided—at the very height of the show’s
popularity—that he needed to leave his work, and so he proceeded to do
precisely that. On April 28th,
2005, while filming the material for the third season of his show, Dave called
his brother, informed him of his travel plans, boarded a plane to Durban, South
Africa and effectively vanished. He did
so unbeknownst to anybody else—not his agent, not his publicist, not his
co-creator/co-writer and close friend Neal Brennan, not even his wife and
children…no one knew where Dave had gone except for Dave’s brother and, of
course, Chappelle himself. Eventually,
(approximately two weeks after he left) the comedian would return to his home
and family in the United States, however, he would never return to the show
again. Yet, it was not commercial
failure that drove him away—the television show had become somewhat of an
overnight sensation and the sales of its DVDs were absurdly successful. Not to mention the fact that at the time of
his departure the young comic had just signed a $50 million deal with Comedy
Central for two more years of the show.
Comedy Central executives simply would not take no for an answer—they
were willing to pay unheard of amounts of money to ensure that Dave would do a
third and fourth season of the show; and still, they would never be
completed.
Once in
South Africa, Chappelle chose to stay there.
The rumor mills began to buzz furiously in the U.S., and still Dave
seemed to remain silent…silence appearing to be his only response to any
inquiry or concern. The backlash from
both fans and the mass media was scathing to say the very least. Most media outlets claimed that he had
checked himself into a rehab facility in South Africa for treatment of drug abuse;
others claimed ominously that he could not handle the pressure. Many of these discussions eventually evolved
in to a critique of the show—turning on Chappelle, and calling in to question
the integrity of the man as well as his comedy.
Closer to the truth was the notion that-
...somewhere in that process of journeying from a grossly
underestimated comic to the funniest man in America, Dave Chappelle began to
feel trapped by the reactions from the suits, from the fans, from the media
from the scholars, from that voice inside his head. These jokes are dangerous in the wrong hands,
he would say. That pressure, from all
sides, from himself, would lead you, if you were living inside Dave Chappelle's
head, to make a mad dash away from the money, real and projected, the fame, the
pressures to do season three, of being labeled a brand, an icon, a genius. (Powell, 2006, para. 39)
Regardless of its collective merit,
the show had a profound impact on a subset of American society insofar as it
reached a considerable amount of people; his messages were heard. The uncensored, second season of Chappelle’s Show sold 1.2 million DVD copies
in the first week of sales in the United States, setting records and making
Comedy Central a considerable chunk of change in the process. In fact,
Chappelle's Show: Season 2 Uncensored,
released May 31 [2005] on DVD, broke first-day and seven-day sales records for
TV shows on DVD, selling nearly 500,000 units the day it was released and more
than 1.2 million units the first seven days.
That makes it the fastest-selling “TV on DVD” title in history,
according to Comedy Central. (“Chappelle Reaps More…,” p. 6)
This is without a doubt an
incredible feat in and of itself. The
network quickly deemed Dave an official cultural icon, positioning him to take
on a commercially viable auteur persona.
The pedestal on which Comedy Central fashioned this one-man-empire: the
DVD.
Ode to the Optical Disc Storage Format: A Media Product with the
Potential to Attract Both Producers and Consumers—Formatting For One and For
All…
Regarding
the careful and specific cultivation of the extra material featured on most
DVDs, Robert Alan Brookey and Robert Westerfelhaus (2002) make the important
claim that: “Such extra-text features can direct the viewer toward preferred
interpretations of the primary text while undermining unfavorable
interpretations, especially those that might hurt the product’s commercial
success” (p. 24). Trained marketers
working for big business are able to spin this ‘extra-text’ in such a way as to
create a sort of marketing gold. These
highly manipulated messages are easily hidden or artfully concealed in such DVD
‘bonus features’ as long as the messages mix well with the actual material’s
execution. The DVD as a media format is
a truly astonishing device, and it is chock-full of rhetorical potential as
well.
The
media it seems has but one, true motivation—that being—raking in more dough,
i.e., making money. Brookey
and Westerfelhaus (2002) state that: “…the mass media are driven by a
meta-ideology that Sender (1999) calls the ethic of consumption. Success is measured in profits, and the
greatest profits are earned by appealing to the largest possible demographic
market, the so-called mainstream…” (p. 28).
Whereas in another essay,
they give emphasis to the idea that: “...the DVD is a format that reaches a
mass audience, ensuring a ready audience for the ancillary features they
include” (Brookey & Westerfelhaus, 2005, p. 114). With Chappelle’s
Show holding the record for domestic sales of the DVD, it is easy to
ascertain why Comedy Central might see it as being in their best interest to
put a great deal of effort into polishing the DVD’s content and style until it
is all just right. This calls for a more
thorough critique of the combined texts (i.e., both original and ancillary) as
a product containing text that has the potential to be responsive, and more
importantly, defensive.
This text challenges the film critic because it can be
used to delegitimate unfavorable critiques—both by addressing those that have
already been voiced and by attempting to preempt those that might be expressed.
In order to meet this challenge, the critics of the DVD must not only critique
the text of the film, but also analyze how their interpretation is addressed by
the extra text. (Brookey &
Westerfelhaus, 2002, p. 27)
The
power of the DVD format has become a defining element in the production of
media today. It appeals to producers,
consumers and collectors of media; and it can also empower the creative
community insofar as this form allows for a less fettered artistic vision to
potentially be realized in regards to censorship. Amidst a sea of regulations, the DVD as
artistic medium is a haven of sorts…that is to say that artists are able to
position more of the messages surrounding their creations—so long as their
messages are consistent with that which is profitable. By examining the controversial television
program Chappelle’s Show as a DVD box
set, one can observe the ways that its messages address a particular rhetorical
exigency or context. More notably, how
the so-called “Lost Episodes” DVD becomes a rhetorical device through which
Comedy Central defends its content, and ultimately defends its production’s
lack of the show’s main man.
Like
many successful comics before him, Mr. Chappelle’s style of humor has never
been of the sugar-coated variety. His
satirical style of humor has a raw realness to it, and the majority of the
content of his material has been based on some extremely touchy
cultural/political issues, particularly those involving race and substance
abuse—but also topics such as—gang violence, prostitution, sexual exploits, the
superficiality of Hollywood, and the court system/legal proceedings of the
United States. Chappelle’s razor-sharp
wit highlights the inherent absurdity in the most disturbing social issues; his
unabashed views come from a place of deep-seated concern about social issues
and the lives of modern Americans. In
other words, he takes his silliness quite seriously, and his material in the
television show is no exception, despite Comedy Central’s unwillingness to
recognize the legitimacy of such humor’s danger. Furthermore, Chappelle defends his own
ability to judge quality standards pertaining to his own show.
“When
they say I make $50 million, it's not like the network is shelling out $50
million,” he says. “I get part of the DVD revenues. Each person
that buys the DVD, they're buying it because they believe in something I did.
I could make a s----- product for these people, but then that breaks the
respect bond. I don't want to make a s----- product. I wouldn't
feel good about it. I'd be rich, and I'd still be miserable, and then I'd
have to lie to myself more and more just to make myself feel cool about
it.” (Qtd. In Farley & Robinson,
para. 31)
The show has always been
defined by its DVD’s extra-texts as ultimately being Dave Chappelle’s artistic
baby—his comedic pride and joy, chock full of sketches he and his long-time
friend and co-creator/co-writer of Chappelle’s
Show Neal Brennan had been discussing doing for years. Their collaborations were the show—their
combined sense of humor what made each sketch more hilarious than the
last. This becomes especially apparent
while listening to the season one DVD commentary as well as season two’s
commentary. It slowly sinks in that
Chappelle and Brennan are the only two ever talking because every sketch’s
concept—not to mention the entire script—was created almost exclusively by the
pair.
Yet when
the laughter finally died down, Dave stated that his feelings about the
potential repercussions of his show’s style of humor (especially concerning
some of the racially charged material) became much more complicated. During his tell-all interview with Oprah,
Chappelle explained some of the factors that led up to his decision to distance
himself from the show, stating: “I was doing sketches that were funny, but
socially irresponsible. And I felt like
I was deliberately being encouraged, and I was overwhelmed…and you don’t pay
attention to things like your ethics when you get so overwhelmed” (Winfrey,
2006). Chappelle admitted to his role in
the ultimate dissolution of the show.
Still Dave did not hesitate to also cite constant creative interference
from Comedy Central as well as the development of an increasingly volatile
working environment overall (Winfrey, 2006).
One subject that they discussed at length was Comedy Central and the
American mass media’s poor handling of the ‘disappearance’ debacle—how the
sensationalized treatment of his decision indicated that perhaps the whole
environment was a bit sick” (Winfrey, 2006).
Statements
had been made to the press by Comedy Central representatives who—when asked
about the upcoming airing of the new season—first claimed that the season’s
progress was being delayed due to Chappelle being ill with a case of walking
pneumonia. The network addressed further
inquiries with the claim that delays were due to a season that happened to be
developing slowly—due to a good old-fashioned case of writer’s block (Winfrey,
2006). In this respect, Comedy Central
blatantly lied to the press regarding the unknown whereabouts of their show’s
star during the beginning of Chappelle’s hiatus. Dave told Oprah that this unnecessary
dishonesty was hardly the first issue that they had ever encountered—citing a doggedly
tumultuous relationship with the network since the first season of Chappelle’s Show (Winfrey, 2006). Nevertheless, Comedy Central purportedly expressed
unconditional support and enthusiasm for the comedian and his work. Which, in its own way, makes perfect sense:
it was always fiscally in the company’s interest to do so.
In
reaffirming his status as an auteur persona Comedy Central downplayed the fact
that Dave chose to leave because he thought the content of the show was
becoming unnecessarily racist. Rather,
they insinuate that his “moodiness” is merely a product of the burden of
creative genius. They endlessly praise
him (without listening to him) effectively masking the tenuous relationship
between the two entities. Somewhere
along the line Comedy Central made the astute observation that if their target
demographic caught wind of said tenuous relationship between network and
comedian, they might side with their beloved Dave Chappelle; potentially
hurting Comedy Central’s reputation including any future attempts made by the
company to use Dave’s material for their own financial gain. As an auteur, his body of work is deemed a
unified collection of which each part is equally valuable—the unforgettable
sketches of the second season are deemed as meaningful as those included in the
“Lost Episodes.” Dave’s denouncement of
his own work is muzzled in the end by the fixed depiction of the comedian that
Comedy Central has so carefully invented.
This branded version of the comedic personality continues to claim
authorship of all aspects of the show with pride; as if the whole incident
involving the show’s abrupt end and Chappelle’s feelings about the
controversial nature of the comedy that he was creating were all just parts of
a bad dream that never really happened.
This slant on reality (in which Dave does not have any issues with the
show or the network) is the most marketable scenario.
It has
been argued that in the realm of big business pertaining to film and
television, “The field does not look like one conducive to individual
expression. Corporate decisions based on
market findings rather than personal feelings seem more likely to affect the
shape and texture of the finished product…” (Bywater & Sobchack, 1989, p.
52). As the home entertainment industry
becomes more technologically savvy, it continues to rapidly expand. On its way, such new technology provides
unique reproductions of various forms of media—each with their own special
potential to be utilized in such a way as to maximize sales and reach entirely
new heights in respect to levels of public consumption. One way in which this concept can be realized
is through the ‘extra-text’ technology of the DVD. However, the way in which the DVD’s potential
is applied to the actual nature of the product seems to determine how
influential said opportunities truly are in the end.
This is
where product designers/content creators are able to devise a marketing
strategy—one systematically executed to appeal to consumers through their
media’s content. In their article “The
digital auteur: Branding identity on the Monsters,
Inc. DVD,” authors Brookey and Westerfelhaus (2005) introduce the notion
that such extra-text coincides with the corporate construction and exploitation
of a commercially viable creative persona, or ‘auteur persona.’ “Film is and always has been a collaborative
practice, and the agency of the auteur is a construct that has been maintained
because it serves the interests of production” (Brookey, 2010, p. 65). In respect to the concept of the “auteur”
within the realm of modern academic theory, the notion is more often than not
considered antiquated and unreasonable; this became especially acknowledged as
being true with the advent of psychoanalytic and ideological criticism. However, at the heart of the theory is
something that people seem to gravitate towards more and more. Philosophically speaking, the theory has its
faults, and yet: “Still, the concept of the director-as-author has survived in
the popular consciousness as well as in the industrial practices of film
production and promotion. For this
reason, identifying a film with a bankable name, such as Steven Spielberg or
Martin Scorsese, becomes an effective way to market the film and attract an
audience” (Brookey, p. 50). In other
words, the auteur theory approach to works of film and television (despite
being considered a dated academic theory) is still regarded as an entirely
viable means of marketing in the modern day.
Profitability of Auteur Establishment in the Modern
Social Milieu
Auteur theory began in the 1950s French film community as
a way in which critics were able to connect the texts of cinema to a particular
director and their overall vision as an artist.
“Influenced by French postwar politics, these critics positioned directors
as agents in an antagonistic relationship with the studio system, who were
struggling to realize their vision against the alienating machinery of
capitalistic enterprise” (Brookey, 2010, p.51).
The theory was modified and applied to American directors by critic
Andrew Sarris (1963). Sarris requires
above all else that an auteur’s body of work have “interior meaning” which he
described as the “…tension between a director’s personality and his material.” This early conception spoke to a modernist
sensibility equating the director with the status of an author. In fact, the word ‘auteur’ is quite literally
French for ‘author.’
Yet in the 1970s, the idea of authorship came under fire
with the emergence of postmodern theory.
No longer was the auteur seen as a mere theoretical construct. Instead, “From the postmodern perspective,
the auteur persona is not so much the natural product of an oeuvre as it is the
construction of a marketable identity” (Brookey & Westerfelhaus, 2005, p.
112). In other words, the auteur proved
to be useful in its projection of an identity…not necessarily the identity
itself. This includes that which we are
instructed to associate with the entity, as well as that which we are
instructed to ignore. This falls in line
with the claim made by Brookey and Westerfelhaus (2005) which states that, “If
the film industry has a commercial need to construct auteurs, then DVD extra
features provide valuable real estate on which that construction can occur” (p.
114). Thus, the corporation’s
conceptualization is established in lieu of the artist’s true vision. Or in other words,
...auteur persona incorporates the romantic notion of the
traditional auteur (Caughie…ed. 1981) – a director who puts his or her personal
vision in each film – and the commercial auteur (Corrigan 1991) – a director
who uses the extra-textual materials to develop a personality apart from his or
her films – into a revitalized auteur concept utilizing emerging technologies
and interactive opportunities with the audience. (Hill-Parks, 2011, p. 2)
Artist
no longer implied one individual, and the auteur became more of an ideological
conceptualization than an actual person.
A caricature of a flesh-strapped marionette; a larger-than-life but
still living human being…an idea behind an icon on dual-action display for the
world to see. Sadly, this often comes
with another side effect...that being the quality of oversimplification. The end result is the corporate cleansing and
claiming of an identity through its calculated presentation of said person as
their “product.” Given the complexity of
the reality of the situation, the actual contents of the messages within the product
in question, and the contentions of the person who is considered creator/owner
of said identity—it seems understandable that the owner’s/producer’s
presentation of the circumstances be crafted with utmost care. Especially now that technological
developments have created new sorts of products that have the capacity to alter
the original work through a new, supplemental dimensions with which to speak
through. A work of filmic art can no
longer be examined based merely on its contents alone. Technology has afforded us a more
multidimensional media product with the capacity to contain other separate (but
significantly relevant) texts which can make claims that are entirely their own. Branding in promotional material has become
the marrow in the bones of the mass-media skeleton. Those bones can be strengthened through the
careful construction of a solid, widespread reputation.
Digital
Branding and the Big Picture
The DVD
has efficaciously altered the landscape of the audiovisual viewing experience. More specifically, the DVD provided an
additional physical dimension to the medium.
Indeed, the-
DVD is
not measured in terms of time, but in terms of capacity: gigabytes. DVD is not a linear medium but rather a form
of data storage, which allows the DVD experience to be an interactive one where
the user freely navigates menus, making the act of watching the main text only
one component of the entire DVD experience, which can also include deleted
scenes and alternative takes. (Hu, 2006,
p. 501)
Through the exploration of differences
in the ancillary content of the show’s three-DVD box set, one is provided with
a more complete understanding of the vision of the show as seen by several
different parties (each with a vested interest in some aspect of the show’s production). This three DVD box set contains every episode
in the series (season one, season two, and season three—“The Lost Episodes”)
completely uncensored as well as additional content, including: episodes with
audio commentary (by Mr. Chappelle and series co-creator Neal Brennan), unaired
footage, unaired sketches, extra stand-up comedy from Dave, two unaired
“Charlie Murphy Stories,” an extended look at the famed interview with Rick
James, a look behind the scenes of the making of Chappelle’s Show, bloopers and deleted scenes.
Yet when
it came to taking advantage of the technological capabilities of the DVD which
allow it to act as a complicated rhetorical object able to build up Chappelle’s
credibility as an auteur persona of their liking —Comedy Central did not
hesitate. The individuals working behind
the scenes made sure that each disc was crammed full of pertinent information
which (if accessed by the user of the DVD) at first glance appears to be
harmless—content that is intended to entertain, perhaps explain, or even
contextualize the sketch or sketches in question. It allows for the viewer to feel like an
insider, someone who is able to access information pertinent to the essence of
the show. The idea being that the more
one consumes these ‘secondary texts’ of sorts (i.e., watches the
ancillary/bonus material), the more that this viewer can somehow see behind the
scenes and potentially even beyond the show’s ‘hype,’ beyond the ridiculous
sensationalism, beyond the initial shock value and controversy, and finally
beyond the cult of personality fueled and blind celebrity-worship—confirming
that there is an undeniable substance to the humor. These ‘secondary texts’ speak to a certain
point of view—one that favors the ideology associated with the producing
company’s brand identity. In other
words, the rendition of the show being perpetuated by the extra-text is the
most marketable version of the story in question…regardless of what that
specific story may be. It is most
universally appealing to suggest such that even the humor in Chappelle’s Show may stir up emotions on
occasion—that does not make it irresponsible or immoral. This content is presented in such a way as to
accomplish this—it is intentionally put together to motivate its viewers to
adopt this particular point of view.
In other
words, rhetorical strategies are executed in such a way as to promote the best
image of the show which in the long run increases the value of the network or
‘brand’ by proxy. A great deal of the
extra-text on the “Lost Episodes” DVD implies that the risqué humor that made
up much of the show was shocking because it was so progressive with a deep
cultural understanding and a spot-on sense of social ‘awareness.’ Chappelle’s concerns are attributed to his
highly enlightened sensibility that is rife with concern for social
responsibility. The reality being that
his persona is more profitable for Comedy Central if he is considered to be an
‘eccentric spiritual guru with a vision,’ than if he is considered another
pissed-off celebrity failing to claw his way through the bureaucracy of
Hollywood in all of its superficial glory.
Auteur
theory has traditionally dealt with issues of authorship—artistry and agency—in
film studies. Namely, “…auteur theory
invests the director with the agency of authorship and maintains that the
qualities that distinguish certain directors (auteurs) can be identified in the
cinematic text” (Brookey, p. 50). Furthermore,
“Andrew Sarris is credited with importing auteur theory for the study of
American film, and in doing so he emphasized romanticism by revering those
directors who succeeded in in their struggles to have their visions realized”
(Brookey, p. 51). Comedy Central’s image
is enhanced by their association with a brooding comedic pioneer that simply could
not go on creating due to the many conflicted feelings about his craft; whereas
they gain considerably less credibility by being associated with a bullied and fame-beaten
man everyone assumes cracked under the pressure of his show’s runaway success. By wrapping the circumstances surrounding the
end of the show as in labels like ‘tragic’ and ‘unfortunate,’ the network
actively avoids the idea that it was actually quite a deliberate decision to end
negotiations with Chappelle—effectively ending the show for good.
Regarding
the ‘bonus’ or ‘extra’ material provided on the DVD in relation to the original
video’s content, authors Dr. Robert Alan Brookey and Dr. Robert Westerfelhaus
(2002) argue in “Hiding homoeroticism in plain view: the Fight Club DVD as digital closet” that:
…by
including such distinct but interrelated texts in a self-contained package, the
DVD turns this intertextual relationship into an intratextual
relationship. Thus, the DVD is perhaps
the ultimate example of media-industry synergy, in which the promotion of a
media product is collapsed into the product itself. (p. 23)
This seems to be applicable
to most DVDs, and the ‘extra’ material provided on the Chappelle’s Show DVDs is no exception.
Indeed,
it was absolutely in the network’s best interest to attempt to retain the
loyalty of its Chappelle’s Show
audience: “…which averaged 3.1 million viewers during its second season, [and] helped propel Comedy Central to
top-10-cable network status…in key young demos” (Larson, 2004, p. 6). To delegitimize Dave in the end would have been
brand suicide—attacking him could lead to a potential backlash from the show’s
many fans. Instead the network makes
every effort to appear disappointed—even saddened—by Chappelle’s decision to
not come back but nonetheless proud of the product they created in the time
that they put in to working with him. Therefore,
the DVD’s extra-text is used to explain step-by-step how and why the final
season was made in the way that it was (i.e., sans Chappelle himself). Their interpretation of the situation is a much
prettier picture of the working environment than Dave had described. Much of the behind-the-scenes material depicts
personally close professionals who appear to still be having fun doing their
jobs; while simultaneously there is a bittersweet undertone as the cast and
crew seems to be lamenting the end of a show they all seem to love. This portrayal is far different from the one
conveyed by Dave…indeed, that seems to be precisely the point. What they choose to show is not material that
has been fabricated or is false, but rather the story depicted is merely one
(more user-friendly) version of a highly complex issue. The text involved forms an argument favoring
the actions of the network without outright shaming Chappelle for his decision
to leave. Yet key to their telling is
this fact: the decision of Chappelle and Chappelle alone was the reason
that the show met its untimely end.
Criticism
Right
away, the extra-text draws attention to the fact that the way that “Lost Episodes”
are done is noticeably different…right down to the fact that Dave is removed
from the opening “title” segment featuring the two elderly gentlemen who
perform the show’s theme song. Usually,
it plays out with one man playing the guitar and the other man playing the
harmonica while back and forth each man sings the show’s title, that is, until
Dave strolls up to drop a few bills in the hat beside the musicians and to
contribute to the song with a hearty “Ah-Woo-Hoo-Hoo” for the tune’s end. Finally, the guitar-playing musician says:
“Let’s start the show;” a quick, bluesy harmonica riff, and then the show
begins.
However,
in “The Lost Episodes” title segment, Dave never shows up. Instead, the two musicians sing the theme like
normal, until eventually the music peters out until they both stop playing,
and—after taking notice of Chappelle’s absence and looking around expectantly
for a moment or two—one man says to the other: “I don’t think he’s coming,” to
which the other replies, “Well, let’s start the show;” the same bluesy
harmonica riff is played (just slightly slower than usual and with less
exuberance), and then the show begins with an added twinge of sadness. Indeed, Dave never does quite “show up.” The audience is shown the team re-filming
this opening segment to show that the cast and crew lament his absence most of
all. It is as though they wish to
emphasize Chappelle’s culpability for the show’s demise (as well as the final
season’s funky structure) without ever outright blaming him for doing it
in.
Then,
the extra text takes the viewers behind-the-scenes to the first attempt at
filming the beginning of episode one of three in which the studio audience is
asked to welcome comedians Charlie Murphy and Donnell Rawlings to the stage (as
the co-hosts for “The Lost Episodes”) in lieu of Mr. Chappelle. They go on to show how they go about becoming
replacement co-hosts of the show. A
great deal of this ‘extra’ material on the controversial Chappelle’s Show: The Lost Episodes DVD seems to be an effort on
the part of Comedy Central to avoid acknowledging outright to disagreeing with
Dave. They barely address Dave’s abrupt
departure from the show beyond the simple fact that he did indeed go to
Africa. Instead they focus almost
solely on discussing (and ultimately defending) their feelings regarding the
responsibility of the show’s comedy.
This is all realized through certain bonus features such as episodes
with commentary and the behind-the-scenes mini-documentary “The Fabulous Making
of Season Three-Ish.”
A lot of the extra-text in the commentary is in many ways extremely
typical outside of the fact that instead of Neal and Dave discussing the
episodes it is Neal, Donnell, and Charlie doing the talking. Much of the conversation is nothing more than
friendly banter and off-the-cuff musings or stories. However, it seems that even when it is
unintended, the tension caused by Dave’s absence seems to rise to the surface…One
such example of extra-text in action occurs during the commentary on episode
one during Dave’s ‘Kill Bill styled
vengeance parody’ sketch over which Donnell Rawlings is relating to the revenge
fantasy scenario by telling the story of an acting teacher that had given him an
especially hard time earlier in his career.
Charlie Murphy boisterously chimes in by stating: “It’s amazing when you
meet someone who is willing to ruin his own business to prove a point…Only
person you can change is you, man” (Chappelle et al., 2003). A brief pause, and then Brennan mutters a weak:
“And that’s f****** hard too” (Chappelle et al., 2003).
Other, more direct reactions remain scattered throughout the
commentary—structured by dialogue, the end product is more of a dissected
musing further supporting the situations many philosophical quandaries more than
anything else. Commentary at the
beginning of the ‘Town Hall Meeting’ marks the beginning of a long, frustrated
attempt by Brennan to articulate how he really feels. Most of it seems to come out in fragmented
bursts…It certainly comes across as being painstakingly honest in its
discombobulating delirium. Finally, in
response to the quote from Chappelle in the TIME
article that introduces the ‘Town Hall Meeting,’ Brennan says: “So- yeah, I
mean, whether to speak to that quote—the ‘setting up stereotypes thing’…This is
a hard…This show is a hard line to walk, where…I’m so sick of talking
about this s***, man, I’m so sick of thinking about this s***, man…I don’t
know” (Chappelle et al., 2003). The
closest that Neal gets in the commentary to concluding anything about the
entire situation comes when he says very matter-of-factly: “The sketch stopped
being about the sketch a long time ago…How do we wrap up the Pixie sketch? I don’t know.
The more I think about it the more it just seems like racial
trigonometry—and I’m not smart enough to get it” (Chappelle et al., 2003).
“We use the N-word all
the time on the show—when you hear, like, Harry Belafonte and Sydney Poitier
and guys like that talk about the fact that people should never use it, it’s
sort of like as the exec producer of Chappelle’s
Show part of me agrees with them—I do—when they say it should never be said,
but then a part of me—generationally…it’s so—oh, I don’t know—it’s just so
different.” –Neal Brennan
“And it’s also, if you
don’t
write it that way then you’re being soft, you’re not being real to what human
beings are actually like…It’s a hard line to walk in trying to be real and
trying to be responsible, I guess.” –Neal Brennan
“The whole idea is to
make you laugh— and that’s the end of the story…THE END—THE
END.” –Charlie Murphy
The commentary concludes with Brennan and Murphy each briefly
explaining why they did what they did (i.e. chose to take part in the making of
the “Lost Episodes”). Murphy makes the
case that it was their responsibility as players that have always been a part
of the show since the very beginning. It
was out of respect for Dave, the show, and its audience to see it done properly
through to the end. Murphy asserts that they were absolutely some of the best
candidates to take on such a task from a place of both humility as well as
pride. Murphy claims that those who
worked on Chappelle’s Show already were logically most likely to be able to be
true to its design. With what seems to
be a great deal of confidence, Murphy concludes: “We have been a part of this…We stood up for
him and did a good job.” Brennan uses a vastly different approach in responding
to the same issue. First he comes right
out saying that one of the biggest factors in play was the contract that he had
signed with Comedy Central. He then
emphasizes the fact that he loved working on and producing the show and is
proud of it regardless of everything that had happened. Lastly, Brennan gives his final goodbye to the
audience by thanking them for all of their loyalty and support.
Without
a doubt, it is pretty much impossible to miss the lack of participation by the
show’s host in the production of these episodes. Comedy Central’s decision to release the
episodes without Dave’s blessing forced the DVD as a product to acknowledge his
decision to leave abruptly without alluding to any of the very real conflicts
involved in the comedian’s controversial departure from the show. These comedic morsels were all that the
network was left with to capitalize off of, which was exactly what they
intended to do—so the presentation and orchestration of this mostly salvaged
collage of funny footage had to be able to ‘defend’ itself. Through choice discussions of the situation,
the set-up seems to invite its audience to judge the state of affairs for
themselves (and love the comedy involved, yet still love Chappelle as
well).
As
mentioned before (after much delay), the shooting of the third season of Chappelle’s Show began and abruptly
ended after only a few weeks. In that
time, material had been worked on and shot, including the sketch that
ultimately caused Dave’s decision to depart from the country. This ‘breaking point,’ according to
Chappelle, was reached while shooting the now-infamous “Black Pixie” sketch…and
it was not the blatantly offensive content of the sketch itself, but the way in
which a white male onlooker laughed at the sketch in progress, that disturbed
Dave so deeply. After years of bravely
confronting issues of race in his comedy, Dave claims he simply doubted whether
or not he was “fighting the good fight anymore.”
Comedy
Central coordinators enlisted co-creator and Executive Producer Neal Brennan to
oversee the salvaging of the third season; using the bit of material that had
been completed before Dave’s departure to mash together a three-episode, mini-season
–one final product/DVD for the network to capitalize off of. The network then enlisted actors (and regular
participants in sketches on the show) Charlie Murphy and Donnell Rawlings to
stand in for Chappelle during the filming of the live studio audience portions
that Dave would obviously not be participating in. Together, this trio would cram a tiny amount
of material (much of which had been worked on before the third season’s
filming—going as far back as 2004) into a truncated third season composed of
three more episodes which they would christen “The Lost Episodes.” The
title chosen purposefully avoids the fact that it is an incomplete season,
whereas instead it seems to allude to a discovery on the part of the network—as
if the episodes and their content had been unearthed versus scavenged. Dave openly disagreed with the release of
this material. Chappelle clearly stated
in his interview with Oprah that if these episodes were aired then he would not
return to finish the third season of the show (Winfrey, 2006). For a brief period of time Comedy Central
quit advertising “The Lost Episodes,”
but ultimately they were released—the first of which the network aired on July
9, 2006.
The infamous ‘Pixie’ sketches involved racially
stereotyped ‘pixies’ urging individuals of different ethnicities to act in ways
which are considered markedly stereotypical of their races regardless of their
apparent discomfort in doing so. One of
these segments featured Dave on a plane being urged by his Stepin Fetchit-like
‘pixie’ (also played by Chappelle but in blackface) to order the fried chicken
despite being obviously uncomfortable doing so while surrounded by so many
white passengers.
The
closest that any of the DVD’s extra-text gets to directly acknowledging Dave’s expressed
feelings about the show involves various types of discussions (between the
studio audience and temporary co-hosts, head producer Neal Brennan and the
temporary co-hosts in the commentary
dialogue, as well as Brennan and the temporary co-hosts behind-the-scenes in
the editing room discussing topic with crew members such as the boom-microphone
technician) shown in response to Dave’s questioning of the social
responsibility of one certain sketch. Yet
whenever it is brought up, it is done so in the form of a friendly group
discussion. Yet the network had no
obligation to address it on the DVD in the first place so it is not as if they
are attempting to save face by simply hiding the issue; but they still manage
to put their own spin on things.
In the
commentary of the episode featuring the infamous ‘Pixies’ sketch, Brennan does
point out the sketch, referring to it as the “controversy sketch.” After Murphy mutters something about it all
being “not that big of a deal” Brennan goes on to discuss the offensive nature
of black-face in any context. They
address the same issue within the episodes themselves by holding what they
called a “Town Hall Meeting” at the end of the episode containing the
controversial ‘Pixie’ sketch. In other
words, at the end of the aforementioned episode portions were shown of
co-hosts Charlie Murphy and Donnell Rawlings interviewing the in-studio
audience as to how they felt about the sketch, cracking jokes along the
way. The majority of the responses shown
conveniently involve individuals defending the humor in the show. Conversely, the few people who were concerned
with the use of racial stereotypes in the sketch were met with witty retorts
from Rawlings and Murphy.
The
sentiments expressed by the audience members included the notion that
Chappelle’s comedy facilitated a much-needed discussion within members of our
society about an uncomfortable topic, but dismissed the show as a legitimate
vehicle for such a debate. The final
audience member shown speaking is a woman who says: “I don’t think it’s the
responsibility of the show to educate the entire world. It’s a comedy show. And even if it was the responsibility of the
show, there’s no way to educate the entire world. So just stick to what you’re doing, and
that’s comedy” (Chappelle et al., 2003).
This comment is met with a roar of approval from the temporary co-hosts
as well as a raucous round of applause from the rest of the studio audience.
Comedy
Central justifies its decision to release the material it had under the guise
that they are, and always have been, on Chappelle’s side. One of the most interesting ways in which
they do this is through the bonus section on the “Lost Episodes” DVD titled
“The Fabulous Making of Chappelle’s Show
Season 3ish.” A twenty minute long
mini-production showing behind the scenes of the making of “The Lost Episodes”
in which executive producer Neal Brennan and temporary co-hosts Charlie Murphy
and Donnell Rawlings discuss whether or not the “Pixie’ sketch crossed the
line.
This
segment is set up much like a light-hearted, mini-documentary featuring mostly
behind-the-scenes footage of the making of this truncated “Lost” season. It is effectively a ‘behind-the-scenes’ clip
show which is hosted/narrated by Robin Leach (famous English personality, most
notably from the television show: Lifestyles
of the Rich and Famous). Still, key
phrasing sets up each clip in question, and the relief of humor is never far
from any discussion involving Dave’s doubts or the controversy surrounding the
go ahead on the making of the show, regardless of the fact that the entire
project was undertaken without Dave’s blessing.
The
segment begins, with a voiceover of Mr. Leach stating, “With Dave Chappelle
incommunicado, it fell to Donnell
Rawlings and ‘Darkness’ himself—Charlie Murphy—to host the show without him”
(Chappelle et al., 2003). Leach then sets
up the first clip which shows footage of the two new hosts as well as executive
producer, Neal Brennan, discussing what they think about the notorious ‘Pixie’
sketch—its offensiveness and whether or not it should be shown in their version
of this season, or if it should be edited, or perhaps not even shown at
all. However, upon expressing their
feelings, the group becomes fixated on one facet of the sketch, and in doing
so, fails to talk about any other interpretation of the sketch or any other
issue at hand for that matter. This
lengthy discussion acts a sort of specially employed distraction or diversion
that magnifies one somewhat trivial aspect of the debate thereby ignoring any
other argument relevant to the issue.
The footage feigns concern for a problem that in the end appears
somewhat overemphasized and unimportant.
The
majority of the conversation is swiftly snagged on the impression that perhaps
the offensive aspect is the inclusion of the banjo music accompanying the
‘Black Pixie,’ and whether or not it was simply this music that made the comedy
bit a little “too much” (Chappelle et al).
At one point in the discussion the group even goes so far as to include
the cameraman filming the scene in the discussion of the offensiveness of the
banjo. Yet when he agrees that maybe the
banjo music is part of the issue, he is immediately met with sounds of
exasperation and a slew of questions signifying a lack of understanding as to
why this is the case. Then, all of a
sudden it is brought to attention that rapper/artist Mos Def was the person who
was playing the banjo on that particular recording. Mos Def (born Dante Terrell Smith) being a
friend of Dave’s who often appeared on the show; but who also happened to be a
prolific American hip-hop artist and actor who was in part known for his expressed
concerns regarding various social issues (including racism and discrimination). This apparently ironic tidbit of information
causes everyone throughout the room to burst out laughing —the absurdity of the
direction of the conversation somehow instantly all too obvious, and in being
such a way, all remaining tension is subdued and pressure gives in to being
washed away by the giggles emanating from the group of grown men on the screen.
Following
this discussion is a slew of clips made up of silly, friendly banter between
everyone in the cast and crew as they are working. Eventually it gets to the very first live
taping of the show sans Chappelle. The
very first thing that Charlie Murphy says in his role as newly appointed
‘co-host’ is:
Dave
Chappelle left the show, but I want y’all to know something. Charlie Murphy is not mad at Dave
Chappelle. Because I happen to know that
if it wasn’t for Dave Chappelle, y’all motherf***ers would still be calling me
Eddie Murphy’s brother. You know,
somebody had to do this. I ain’t want to
be up here doing this…Speaking for Donnell and myself… (Chappelle et al.,
2003)
Cue Donnell Rawlings to cut
in with a joke, exclaiming, “Speak for yourself, I need all the camera time I
can get” (Chappelle et al., 2003).
Finally, the so-called “Town Hall Meeting about Race” is revisited again
slightly more at length. Donnell is
shown thanking the audience, and then Leach comes back one last time to comment
on how he “…hopes you [the viewer] liked it, because these DVD extras can often
really blow” (Chappelle et al). The DVD
extra signoff speaking out in a way as to almost safeguard itself from any
further ridicule by concluding the section with this specific bit of
self-deprecating, self-referential humor.
Conclusion
Comedy
Central affirms Dave’s status as an auteur persona in the DVD extra-text of
season one and season two; and then reaffirms this status in the DVD extra-text
of the truncated third season through feigning concern for the comedian’s doubts
as well as by lamenting the network’s loss of his talent. By positioning Chappelle as a socially
conscious yet progressively edgy comedian who chose to leave the show due to
unknown/unfortunate circumstances, Comedy Central is able to take on these
characteristics as aspects of their overall brand identity versus incorporating
responses to some of the less flattering comments made by Mr. Chappelle about
the network. After all, in a big way Chappelle’s Show helped to put them on
the map. They were not going to let him
take them off of the map as well.
However,
it would seem that if Comedy Central sincerely respected Dave’s abilities as an
auteur, then perhaps they would have simply respected his wishes and not aired
the material. Yet his auteur persona
exists in part because he has become such a cultural icon—which can be a
difficult identity to hold on to considering it is often a trumped-up illusion
of sorts which retains the qualities of a commercially viable projection of
Dave Chappelle the man. What Chappelle’s
future holds—we will all just have to wait and see; perhaps reassured in his
commitment to the pursuit of what he regards to as being of the utmost
quality. Part of Dave’s appeal rests
within his desire to be a good comedian, i.e. his desire to actually be really funny…
Chappelle’s
humor is fearless in its approach to racism; it wallows in our unspoken
national discomfort with it, deftly mining that which is unthinkable for belly
laughs. If people are not getting the
joke the way Chappelle intended, you can imagine he might have to rethink,
well, everything. (Goodman, 2006, p. E1)
Perhaps we as viewers, should
in fact do the same, and rethink, well, everything. In an interview with Esquire magazine Dave stated:
“Genius is such a grandiose term. I didn't do it all by
myself. Sometimes I get credit for things I don't really deserve. And other
times I don't get credit for things that I do think I deserve.… This phrase
kept coming up: It's not personal, it's just business. If you ever hear a white
man say that, even if you are white, run for your mother f------ life. When a
person tells you something's not personal, it's just business, that means some
ice-cold s--- might be about…” (Qtd. in
Powell, 2006, para. 21)
In the
end, corporate interest and the mass media have the power to perpetuate
hegemony and will continue to do so, but it is within our abilities as viewers
and consumers to craft our own interpretations and form opinions for ourselves. Yet it is this conscious decision on behalf
of the individual to critically analyze that will
ultimately make all the difference in our consumption of media in the future.
References
Brookey, Robert Alan, &
Westerfelhaus, Robert (2005). The digital auteur: branding identity on the
Monsters,
Inc. DVD. Western Journal of
Communication, 69(2), 109-128.
Brookey, Robert Alan, &
Westerfelhaus, Robert (2002). Hiding homoeroticism in plain view:the Fight
Club
DVD as digital closet. Critical
Studies in Media Communication, 19(1), 21-43.
Brookey, Robert Alan (2010). Hollywood Gamers: Digital Convergence in the
Film and Video
Game Industries. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Bywater, Tim, & Sobchack,
Thomas (1989). Introduction to Film
Criticism: Major Critical
Approaches
to Narrative Film. New York: Longman.
Chappelle, David (Executive
Producer), & Brennan, Neal (Executive Producer), & Armour, Michele
(Executive Producer). (2003). Chappelle’s Show [Television series].
Viacom.
Chappelle Reaps More DVDends. Broadcasting & Cable, 135(23),
6-32.
Chappelle Reveals Himself. Broadcasting & Cable, 136(1), 9-14.
Farley, Christopher John,
& Robinson, Simon (2005). DAVE SPEAKS.
Time, 165(21), 68-73.
Goodman, Tim (2006). Fame
finally got to Dave Chappelle. Well,
sort of. More like his conscience. San
Francisco Chronicle. E1.
Hazlick, Denise (2006).
Chappelle bares all ‘Inside the Actor’s Studio.’ MSNBC.com.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/11259024/ns/today-entertainment/t/chappelle-bares-all-inside-actors-
studio/#.UBa8RrRfHQM.
Hill-Parks, Erin (2011).
Identity construction and ambiguity in Christopher Nolan’s films. Wide Screen,
3(1),
1-18.
Horkheimer, Max (1974). Eclipse of Reason. London: The Continuum
Publishing Company.
Hu, Brian (2006). DVD deleted
scenes and the recovery of the invisible. Journal
of Media & Cultural
Studies, 20(4),
499-508.
Larson, Megan (2004). Comedy
re-signs Chappelle. MediaWeek, 14(29),
6-6.
Levin, Gary (2006). Chappelle
back on TV for 3 episodes. USA Today,
01d.
Powell, Kevin. (2006). Heaven
HELL DAVE CHAPPELLE. (Cover Story). Esquire,
(145)5. 92-
147.
Winfrey, Oprah (Writer).
(2006, February 3). His First TV Interview: Why Dave Chappelle
Walked Away from $50 Million
[Television series episode]. Oprah Winfrey (Executive Producer), The
Oprah Winfrey
Show. Chicago: KWP.
No comments:
Post a Comment