Someone Define “Alternative” Comedy for me

By: Eli Sairs

“My mother-in-law is quite over-bearing,” “my, how white folks misunderstand our culture,” “what if (insert thing someone at a profession does) did that thing in an OTHER situation, like (insert crazy mis-matched situation, rendering former activity outrageous), that’d be like, whoa!”

So it’s great we have an escape from this kinda stuff, in the form of what alota folks call “alternative” comedy. But I wish those alota folks could clearly define for me what that is. Here are the surface differences, as far as I can tell:

A. Performances are often at music venues, or places that aren’t specific to comedy.

B. You get to/have to stand up.

C. The subject matter and style are consciously different than what you’d find at a mainstream comedy venue.

So A and B are mostly based on Comedians of Comedy/Invite Them Up type shows I’ve seen/been to. The third is the main issue I want to explore. Some comics and fans I’ve talked with claim to prefer alternative comedy, some say it’s just an arbitrary label. I can see where they’re coming from. How different is it? “what if (insert Star Wars/Goonies reference) did that in an OTHER situation, like (insert location from a semi-obscure movie/comic)?!” -or- “Here’s Gandalf as a crossing guard: YOU. SHALL NOT. PASS!!!...and now, Gandalf as a teacher flunking a student…). Of course, there are more than just references (which can be enjoyable, even if a bit esoteric). Some alternative comics play around with structure, which I really do respect. Jon Benjamin and Jon Glaser do two-man hybrids of sketch and stand-up, and play around with characters, which comes as a relief if you’ve sat through too many slick, mass-appeal comics and predicted every twist half-way through the premise. I think it was Hampton who I talked to about how discovering the “Invite Them Up” album was a minor revelation for both of us. “There are people who get my sense of humor!”

[hit the jump for more from Eli's take on comedy from the fringes]

Eugene Mirman (brilliant) claimed that he knew from the get-go that only a specific portion of comedy crowds were going to be into him, and he focused on appealing towards this demographic. Sorry to weave personal details into this, but I’ve deliberated fairly hard on this statement. Some comics and crowd members have referred to my “comedy” as “alternative.” When I try to figure out why, I’ve been given vague answers like “it’s quirky” or “off-beat” (which I do appreciate, though others could claim ‘weird to compensate for lack of talent’). At the Improv competition, I had fun, but the crowd wasn’t really feeling a lot of it. I’d never say it went over their heads, cause then I’m an ass, but at the same time, I’ll defend the material. I’ll say it sometimes goes to the side of people’s heads. All comics can relate to this. I realize that all crowds vary, but I have noticed that mainstream (again, a hard word to define in this context) crowds don’t react the way younger crowds (age-ism!), people who I may relate to more personally, react. Should comics like this take after Mirman’s claim, and say screw the people who don’t get it? Why perform at the Improv for 150 people if you only care to make the 20 or so of “your people” laugh? A laugh from someone who I can’t relate to, with a different sense of humor, is much more of an accomplishment. I want to learn how to bridge that divide. Emo Philips is as weird as it gets, and he could appeal to the mainstream. For his time, was there anyone more alternative in approach then Steve Martin? He became a national phenomenon.

A lot of this seems to be putting down the idea of alternative comedy. I would like to say there’s no difference. But when it comes down to it, if given the choice between seeing or performing a show described as alternative, or a packed, rigidly produced comedy club, I would choose the former in a heart-beat. For some reason, I enjoy the thrill of snagging the attention of a conversing and indifferent crowd at College Perk, with no stage or promise anyone’s there to see comedy, more than I like going up at a place that’s comedy-specific, with lights, a great sound system, and an audience waiting attentively for the first joke.I think lots of “alt” comics could kill at the Improv, and similar places. Funny is funny, it’s the comic’s job to communicate why, even if the communication line is harder to find due to an off-center approach. However, if Zach Galifianakis, who’s said he doesn’t like comedy clubs, feels more comfortable at music venues, in front of the people more likely to be open to his style, should he jump through hoops to impress people looking for something obvious and easy to digest? This just leads to asking what drives the comic to do comedy, and what he/she considers to be “success.” It’s becoming increasingly obvious that this post offers no kind of answers; it’s just a question I wanted to frame, and I’d like to hear how others would pose or answer it.