Letters to the Editor
-
I can't decide either
Thanks, Joan for writing about this. I was also strangely uncomfortable about the whole thing. But, I've come up with two theories that would almost make it bearable to me:
The first is basically what Rebecca Traister spelled out in her blog: that Fonda's schtick totally reversed the host/celebrity power structure, and in so doing was compelling T.V. To this I've added the fantasy that Fonda was anxious about going solo against Stephen and decided to reverse the tables as a way to avoid her own discomfort.
The second (my favorite)[and I think way unlikely based on Colbert's seemingly authentic reaction...but hey, a guy can dream] is that Colbert was completely in on it, and went for it as a way to puncture the hot air balloon that is the right wing, male pundit's faux masculinity. I realize this is a stretch, but O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Hannity et al, have really staked their claims on a foundation of uber-manliness. I have no doubt that if any of them were subjected to a similar visit from Jane they would either completely lose control a)their he-man veneer and show themselves to be what they are (insecure children) or b)lose control of the rage/sexual repression that lives within them and respond in some manner that would shortly find them in the Don Imus, recently retired category.
Mostly though, I just don't know what to make of it. Eeesh!
-
awkward humour
Maybe humour-in-awkwardness doesn't agree with everyone. Take Colbert's work on Strangers With Candy, his Washington press corps performance, or his general interview style (especially in his "better know a district" segments), in each case it's funny because it's awkward, either for someone else who serves as the target or for us as viewers (or both). I thought Fonda managed brilliantly to beat him at his own game, and watching him sweat and squirm was precisely what made it funny - well for me at least. But there's always the chance that such humour goes too far and becomes, for some, just plain awkward. I gotta admit, there's some segments in Ricky Gervais's The Office that I just couldn't bear to watch - they were just too good at what they were trying to do.
-
Moanin' Joan
This, from the creator of the infamous "Broadsheet," is irony on an epic scale.
Get over yourself, Joan – in the metaphoric sense, of course, as you've proven yourself completely tone deaf on constructive criticism. Jane Fonda, it seems, you hold to another – and higher – standard entirely.
-
My theory
Okay, okay. Here's my theory. Stephen Colbert sometimes gets a little handsy when he's in character. Witness the The Daily Show segment wherein Colbert goes to the Republican National Convention, starts boogeying to whatever rally cry theme song the floor is playing and ends up putting his hands on some random conservative lady's rump. It's a funny piece, but not exactly consensual.
Okay. I think Fonda was playing chicken; Whoever breaks character first loses. Maybe, for whatever reason, she wanted to challenge his television personae. Fictional or not, the Colbert bluster begs to be jacked with, just the same as he enjoys messing with others. That's my theory.
And yeah! It IS gross! Yuck!!!!
-
For what it's worth
I was at the show last night (one day after the Jane Fonda interview), and the folks at the "Report" were joking about it during the pre-show warmup, the Q&A session, the "toss" from "The Daily Show," and in Stephen's and Jon's untelevised, pre-"toss" banter.
Reactions to the Jane Fonda interview have been all over the map. I felt awkward on Stephen's behalf (because I don't think he had expected Jane's actions), but I also thought it was hilarious. "Stephen" the character is a provocateur, and Jane called him on his bluff; I found that outrageously funny for a change, and, given the context of the show, not inappropriate.
I've been to a number of tapings of "The Colbert Report" now, and I thought Stephen seemed to be in his usual high spirits last night. He seemed a little abashed by the teasing about the interview, perhaps, but wasn't terribly worked up over it; he commented to Jon that all those years of leg lifts had really paid off for Jane as the two baited each other before taping the "toss," and he seemed basically to be taking things in stride.
Anyhow, it's fun to deconstruct the interview, but I don't think it's something that we need to let distress us too much.
-
on fondling stephen colbert
The feelings you expressed were exactly what I would have expected. Sounds tres normal to me.
-
I totally agree, Sandra M...
"It seems you are cringing because you can't stand to think a 60+ woman still see herself as sexual as in her 'Barbarella' days, regardless of what *you* think."
Jane Fonda is hot, she knows it, and she used it to comic effect. It was great! You "it was so icky" people need to come to grips with the new reality: more and more people are remaining sexually attractive and active beings past the age of 40. In other words, they are no longer abandoning a part of their humanity because it makes younger people and some older prudes uncomfortable.
Go Silver Foxes!!!
-
Newsflash, Joan!
Sometimes art makes us uncomfortable.
It's a good thing!
Nervously,
Gordon Ginsberg
-
Mirror, mirror
I think both the post and the responses here say a great deal more about everyone's ideas about women, men and sex than they do about either Colbert or Fonda. Since we haven't heard a thing from either of them about it (have we?), we can't actually make any judgments about any of it. We can only decided what we think based on what we see on the tape.
He might be embarrassed. Then again, both the blushing and the restlessness might be due to Colbert trying desperately not to burst into hysterical laughter. (That's what I saw there - a master funny man being got good.) She might be creepy, but then again, she might be teasing a good friend. The encounter might be an imposition, or an excellent satire, or missed signals. We don't know, so why get all hot under the collar about it?
The one thing I do know is - it was damn funny.