Larry Charles on the only genuine emotion that fuels comedy
The comedy guru explains why hugging and learning are anathema to comedy.
Comedy guru Larry Charles (Seinfeld, Borat, etc.) talks to Terry Gross: How Larry Charles went from selling jokes on the street to writing for 'Seinfeld'. Along the way, he explains why the only genuine emotion that really fuels comedy is anger.
GROSS: You write in your memoir that hugging and learning is anathema to comedy. And one of the mottos that - I don't know who came up with it - about Seinfeld was no hugging, no learning. And you go on to say coldness, callousness, uncaring, uncompassionate, disdain, skepticism, scoffing at seriousness - these are the building blocks of comedy, and there was no room for genuine emotion. Do you still feel like those negative feelings are the drivers of comedy, and there's no room for genuine emotion?
CHARLES: Yeah, I mean, I think the only genuine emotion that really seems to sort of fuel comedy is anger. That is the emotion that I think does exist in comedy. And I think a lot of comedians are working through that anger. Whether it be Mel Brooks, one of the sweetest people in the world, or, you know, someone like Bill Burr or Louis C.K. or whoever it might be, you will feel some sort of anger. They have aggression towards the world that they have been - towards the hand they have been dealt. But yeah, I do still kind of believe that. It feels like if you are crying or you're feeling love, you're not laughing.
GROSS: It's funny 'cause Jerry Seinfeld is often offered as the person who doesn't fit all of that, like, anger being the driving engine of his comedy.
CHARLES: Well, that's true, but I think there probably is more anger there than is - we see on the surface. And something we brought out in the show was that Jerry has a very dark side and a very cold side that he kind of has a sadistic glee about and is part of his comedy. And he just is able to project a kind of sweetness, which is also real. But that sort of dichotomy in him is part of the driving force of his comedy. He could be very impatient. You know, he could be very intolerant of other people's point of view. That's a lot of where his comedy comes from. He's making fun of what other people believe. And so there is a lot of aggression to that as well, even though he presents it in a very palatable, palatable way, you know?
If you are crying or you're feeling love, you're not laughing.
I think anyone who is drawn to comedy really has a problem with injustice. Whether it’s perceived as not grounded in reality or it’s blatantly obvious, we feel like we have to say something.
Seems like a pretty stunted view of comedy. I can think of many comedians that have grown past "anger is the only way to be funny." Try Sheng Wang for one, though there's tons more and many who aren't dudes