DAVID LETTERMAN: QUINTESSENTIALLY POSTMODERN?

 DAVID LETTERMAN: QUINTESSENTIALLY POSTMODERN?

Geri Lynn Woods
Hum 413
Prof Linda Kintz
November 15, 1991

"Late Night with David Letterman." To fans those words mean hip, irreverent and absurd humor. To detractors this conjures up images of an arrogant and abusive talk show host. What happens every weekday at 12:30 AM probably occurs somewhere between these two extreme views. The enduring popularity of this program in a previously undesirable time slot, as well as the special niche it has created for itself in redefining the format established by 'The Tonight Show" make it worthy of critical attention. To what extent do David Letterman's ironic style of humor and departure from the traditional talk show conventions work? In the fast-paced and rapidly changing landscape of television, where cancellation occurs more often than renewal for programs, does a successful nine-year run constitute a tradition itself? What does it mean that a celebrity can establish a loyal following by feuding with guests (as seen in the recent cycle of visits by Charles Grodin) and presenting anti-climactic spectacles such as "Network Time Killers" (often circus ats)? To answer these questions, one must consider this program's postmodern aesthetics and dynamics.

 

The episode which is the subject of this paper originally aired November 21, 1990. In it can be found many examples of the fracturing, self-reflexiveness and intertextuality which comprise postmodern aesthetics When Dave asks for an external camera to be turned on, the facade of the show is dropped and the viewer is given a glimpse of the show's internal workings. This self-reflexive behavior allows the program to signify its status as a construction and is a typical event on any given evening. Further evidence of this acknowledgement can be seen in Letterman's segue to a commercial during an interview with a guest, "We'll reposition the cameras and be back again with Keenan Ivory Wayans"(1) and his manner of degrading a question he himself asked by following it with "There's a talk show question for you. Although he is hosting a talk show and asking questions typical to that type of experience, Letterman distances himself from it by highlighting its conventionality. 

 

In regard to the program's display of what are usually considered off-camera areas, it has been noted that "Nothing is left from our view: the cameramen, the technicians, the electricians. We see the corridors that lead to the studio, the cables on the ground."(2) This episode does all these things while raising political and ideological questions in the skit about being grateful on Thanksgiving. Because most of the participants are people whose duties do not normally include speaking before the camera, are the structural politics of the interview show disrupted? Does the movement away from revolving such a program around the central figure of the host, albeit temporarily, constitute a more egalitarian approach toward occupying the celebrity spotlight? This is only somewhat true, for the material in the skit is indicative of more of the Letterman style than that of the individual actors. Many of the responses play upon a recurring theme of 'Late Night": being subversive by having an irreverent attitude toward authority. Al Mahr is "thankful GE hasn't fired my ass yet" and drummer Anton is happy about his 'God given right to carry loaded pistols wherever we want without permits whatsoever. Producer Bon Morton is grateful for the chance to nap at this hour every day, an insult to Letterman himself. There is an ironic condition generated by the conditions which allow success to come from biting the hand that feeds you. However, it is all part of the ironic humor of "Late Night", the show with the host from the "badlands of Connecticut". The insults are not to be taken as sincere, rather they are a product of the insincerity and irreverence which permeates the show. 

 

Lawrence Grossberg's words about MTV are easily applicable to "Late Night": "This 'hip' attitude is a kind of ironic nihilism in which ironic distance is offered as the only reasonable relation to a reality which is no longer reasonable."(3) This can be most clearly seen in cameraman Bailey's appreciation of the "1991 line of American luxury sedans, especially the Buick Skylark." Bailey is behaving as someone who has uncritically accepted the propaganda of television, which makes him an object of ridicule. An ironic position is created for the viewer who is being told to mistrust television via television. The result is that "Late Night" becomes a credible venue because it recognizes TV's hypnotic powers while distancing itself from that aspect of it. Bailey's lines also show the effects of fragmentation upon television. It lowers standards of what is an acceptable viewing experience. The breakdown of linear logic in favor of postmodern notions of juxtaposition and fragmentation means that remarks made on TV talk shows do not have any intrinsic value but are supposed to be valued for the role they play in the discourse. The deterioration od boundaries through intertextual references (such as Dave mocking a Robert Urich aspirin ad) is not in and of itself valuable. A postmodern system that prefers the concept of process over the idea of closure can't value what it assumes and takes for granted as a backdrop for a new structure to work within. Content takes precedence over form under postmodern dynamics because the form itself becomes predictable. A radical or novel moment may be minimal but must eventually become developed as ideological shifts occur and postmodern aesthetics proliferate through many media forms. Letterman, were he cold and unendearing to all of his guests, would be taking the extreme position of anti-host, subverting the expectation that interview show hosts put their guests at ease and behave in all ways to avoid tension and conflict. To do so would be to become a one-trick pony. Although examples of this behavior are not readily available in this particular episode, it is significant enough to mention and can be found in most shows where Tony Randall or Richard Simmons are guests. Letterman is able to slip into that persona on occasion and to greater effect because an inverted expectation will come to replace the original expectation. To a certain degree this has already happened, for his long reign as the star of late night entertainment has made millions of viewers familiar with his style and particular type of humor. Letterman's posturing toward guests brings to issue the idea that "no particular pose can make a claim to some intrinsic status; but "any pose can gain a status by virtue of one's commitment to it, it can be an important landmark on one's affective map of what matters" (Grossberg, 265). Since "authentic inauthenticity refuses to locate identity and difference outside the temporary affective commitments" (Grossberg 265), Anton can be gun-crazed for only a moment during a sketch, Robert Morton can be rude for a few seconds, and Dave is simply unpredictable. There is s sense of suspense in anticipating how Dave will treat each guest, Does Dave like Roseanne Cash or will he be hostile and derogatory toward her? The likely possibility that he will overplay affection or disdain toward a guest is a marker of such "authentic inauthenticity" that excludes sincerity and the possibility of a grounded reality within a show so self-conscious of its constructed nature. We never see the "real", off screen Dave.

 

This lack of grounded space, an existential concept prevalent in postmodern art, is then basis of a humorous anecdote told by Dave about a passing motorist asking, "Where am I?" and his inability to answer the question. The nihilistic possibilities of such a scenario are sublimated in the cheerful presentation of the material, and that moment has no clearly defined closure, but runs into the next segment, Boy Scouts, In this episode we get to see not only cables but the stairwell of the building as well, while Boy Scouts pass off a can of soda from a vending machine to the studio. The humor is derived from the absurd amount of effort required to accomplish a simple task. This can be read as commentary on the futility of individual action in the face of post-industrial bureaucracy. It takes a high-powered celebrity to mobilize the labor to execute the action, and the nature of the action is deserving of attention. The delivery of a non-essential consumer product is what is achieved by the spectacular act. This reflects on the position the show occupies in society, Through the mobilization of tremendous economic and technical network forces, viewers re delivered the non-essential consumer product that is "Late Night." That Boy Scout Troop 666 (a satanic number) is involved is used to imply that something is amiss in the assembly-line means of production. It is a type of historical slumming made absurd by the presence of Boy Scouts. There would be a much different effect if the laborers were laid-off automotive workers from Michigan. Perhaps this sketch is playing off the idea of boy Scouts performing good deeds and contributing to society, while sinisterly implying that their future positions in American life will be about as meaningful as this absurd act which gave them a few moments of fleeting fame.
Maybe I am reading too much into this, for there is also a responsive, non-analytical approach to the material which leads to a quite different interpretation. In this arena the possibility would be allowed for thar the material does not work toward deconstruction or restructuring established meanings, but rather it does not work at all, it is ineffectual. Postmodern interpretations speculate on the meanings made available by a text. To do so is to operate under the assumption that the text is a functional system, even if it is a system of fragments. But when a joke isn't funny, it simply isn't funny, and this type of criticism doesn't acknowledge that. One drawback of postmodern criticism is that it can act as an apologist for bad art by making value judgments about the meanings of texts but not of the texts themselves. 

 

The interpretations asserted in this paper are plausible and can be supported with textual evidence but have largely overlooked that "On the David Letterman show, what appears to be a transgression of formal requirements, is instead the fulfillment of the talk show format" (Carpignano, et al. 46) When Letterman asks the comedian questions designed to provoke the guest's comedic response, Dave is not being random or avant-garde. He is playing into the convention of creating a situation for comics who do panel to promote themselves and display their humor. Throughout this episode Letterman was accommodating in letting all the guests do what they wanted to do without confrontational interference. He did not make Roseanne Cash perform a duet with a pig or some other stunt. Despite the reputation for subversiveness "Late Night" has the very traditional goal of being a venue for celebrities to sustain or build their status as such. This means intertextuality and self-reflexiveness can uphold conventions by being appropriated by the talk show format. Mr Wayans is an incentive to watch when the viewer is familiar with who he is and feels like a part of the in-group of those knowledgeable about his program, and in effect we are witnessing two network hands washing each other. Similarly, Larry Bud Melman is funnier to those who are "in" on the role he plays on the program, and the humor on car ads only works when viewers recognize the reference. Satire needs the object of satire to continue existing as fuel for its own parasitic existence. Putting the program in this context alters the meaning of its context. Because alternate interpretations are available, choosing to focus on how "Late Night" upholds conventions or breaks from them, one's attitude is a decisive factor. The question of the hierarchy of meanings (which has primacy) is settled in the mind of the viewer. The domain of interpretation determines meaning and the question remains: why do people watch, and how do they view the experience? 

 

What I see in Letterman is the Prince of Swords from the Egyptian Tarot: "He reduces everything to unreality by removing its substance and transmuting it to an ideal world of ratiocination which is purely formal and out of relation to any facts, even those upon which it is based." (4)

(1) "Late Night with David Letterman". (New York: National Broadcasting Co, originally aired November 21, 1990).

(2) Paolo Carpignano, et al., "Chatter in the Age of Electronic Reproduction: Talk, Television, and the Public Mind" (46) All further references will be cited in this essay.

(3) Lawrence Grossberg. "MTV: Swinging on the (Postmodern) Star, Cultural Politics in Contemporary America, Ian Angus and Sut Jhally, eds; (New York: Routledge, Chapman, Hall,, Inc, 1989) (264) All further references will be cited in this essay.

(4) Aleister Crowley, The Book of Thoth (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, Inc 1944, (162)