New Yorker 07月19日 06:54
Stephen Colbert on Kenneth Tynan’s Profile of Johnny Carson
index_new5.html
../../../zaker_core/zaker_tpl_static/wap/tpl_guoji1.html

 

本文作者受邀评论肯尼斯·提南1978年撰写的关于约翰尼·卡森的特写文章。作者认为提南的文章篇幅宏大,充满了文学性和对卡森及其所处时代的细致描绘,但也指出提南的写作风格与卡森的性格和节目风格存在差异。文章回顾了卡森的“今夜秀”以及他与当时好莱坞名流的交集,并对提南未能深入探讨卡森的创作过程表示遗憾。作者最终认为,尽管提南是一位杰出的作家,但其风格与卡森的主题并不完全契合,并感慨如今时代对这类长篇评论的接受度已不如从前。

🌟 文章作者对肯尼斯·提南的长篇特写《约翰尼·卡森》进行了评论,认为提南的文章篇幅冗长,充满了个人风格和对卡森的细致观察,但也暗示提南的写作方式与卡森本人及其节目风格的“朴实”有所不同,例如提南频繁使用外来词和文学典故,而卡森则更倾向于简洁的幽默。

💎 作者将提南的文章比作“时间胶囊”或“低温储存室”,其中包含了卡森黄金时代“今夜秀”的盛况,以及他与众多好莱坞明星和文化名人的交集,如杰克·莱蒙、奥逊·威尔斯等。文章细致地描绘了那个时代的社交场景和文化氛围,让读者得以回顾。

💡 作者对提南的文章未能深入探讨卡森的创作过程感到失望,认为文章更多地关注了卡森的个人形象和社会关系,而未能揭示他如何制作节目、如何构思段子。作者强调“在钢丝上行走就是生活”,而卡森的节目制作过程正是其核心魅力所在,这部分内容的缺失是一个遗憾。

🧠 作者认为提南的写作风格与卡森本人存在“对立”,提南是“知识分子的烟火推销员”,而卡森则“聪明而低调”。当提南的文章中出现卡森的笑话时,会显得格格不入。作者倾向于卡森那种更直接、更“接地气”的风格,而非提南华丽的辞藻和深刻的洞察。

⏳ 作者感慨如今的时代已经不再适合阅读如此篇幅的评论,并且“国王”卡森及其“王国”的受众群体已经大大缩小。文章暗示了媒体环境的变化以及观众品味的演变,使得提南式的深度文化评论和卡森式的国民综艺都面临着新的挑战。

When Mr. Remnick asked me to write a seven-hundred-and-twenty-five-word Take on Kenneth Tynan’s 1978 Profile of Johnny Carson, I said, “My honor, cher David.” (New Yorker editors love when you use foreign words. They’re weak for anything italicized. Anything.) “I write a late-night show. I eat seven hundred words for breakfast.” In actuality, I host a late-night show and have a low-glycemic smoothie for breakfast. My doctor says the words were clogging my carotid, and, after reading “Fifteen Years of the Salto Mortale,” I need a statin.

That article is twenty thousand words. Let me repeat that: words. Can anyone read that much Tynan without adopting his native tongue wag? Can I possibly resist dropping in the occasional causerie, sodality, or antiphonal?

While I host a show in the same time slot and tradition as Carson, I am, per certo, not Johnny. Per Tynan, neither was “Johnny,” who is described as an “eighth” of Carson—the rest being hidden behind Midwestern and professional rectitudes and a protective sodality (there we go) of producers, lawyers, and execs who pronounced Johnny a reformed drinker, loving son, and husband faithful to the point of celibacy. (This last, from Swifty Lazar, is by Tynan unchallenged with the logical counterpoint of pointing out Johnny’s wife count.)

True or false, what care we? Johnny or “Johnny,” he was there every night like the tide, and we loved him. I have the Carson books; I have watched the Carson bios; I have a dear friendship with his old writer and peer Dick Cavett. Nothing in Tynan’s article surprised me, but I enjoyed it as a time capsule—or, given the submerged iceberg at its center, a cryogenic chamber.

When the “Tonight Show” started, it was a sort of public after-party hosted by Steve Allen at Broadway’s Hudson Theatre, with Steve’s famous friends and stars of the stage. Tynan seats us at the best table at Carson’s party, where, between sips of champagne, the author points a discreet, thin finger at a parade of the sparkling departed: Jack Lemmon, Orson Welles, Tony Curtis, Gregory Peck, Billy Wilder, James Stewart. (Why not Jimmy, Kenneth? Wilder got his Billy. Have a bit of the Bollinger and get back to me, won’t you?)

Forty-seven years on, some dropped names are less goggled at than Googled: Charles Aznavour, Roger Vadim, Michelangelo Antonioni, Lea Padovani. And Tynan liberally salts his voluminous causerie (!) with references unassociated with current (and what he might deem intellectually jejune) late night: Keats, Rabelais, Ezra Pound, and Hieronymus Bosch, though one can imagine H.B. appreciating the earthly delights of Floyd Turbo, Art Fern, and Carnac the Magnificent.

From Hollywood to the Hasty Pudding, we waft like smoke from an unfiltered Pall Mall through Carson’s worlds, most of which are gone. Where now is the audience for ten verbal tons on the King of Late Night? Where is that Kingdom? Narrowed dramatically since ’78, along with the lapels.

One disappointment: Tynan presents no process. How did Johnny arrive at “between sixteen and twenty-two surefire jokes” per monologue? What happened behind that rainbow curtain? I know the article is about the man, not the job, but we’re told that the show is Johnny; Johnny is the show. To be on the wire is life. The rest, as the dead man says, is waiting. We spend a lot of time in the waiting room.

I’m suddenly not sure what is meant by “Take.” Is this supposed to be a review?

Tynan is a great writer, and it’s a great read, but was he right for this subject? Johnny was very intelligent and very well read, with a keen interest in politics, but largely kept those sides to himself. Carson was smart in a quiet way, while Tynan was an intellectual-firework salesman. Tynan has a style so antithetical to Carson’s that, when we get a joke from Johnny’s monologue or a conversational one-liner, it sticks out like a Popsicle in a Pavlova. Tynan bakes a tasty meringue, but I prefer the Good Humor Man.

Does anyone write (or live) like Tynan anymore? The tone of his prose is not cynical so much as omniscient. A teacher supposedly once remarked that Tynan was “the only boy I could never teach anything.” Here is something Kenneth could have learned from Johnny: fewer words. ♦


The world of Johnny Carson.

Fish AI Reader

Fish AI Reader

AI辅助创作,多种专业模板,深度分析,高质量内容生成。从观点提取到深度思考,FishAI为您提供全方位的创作支持。新版本引入自定义参数,让您的创作更加个性化和精准。

FishAI

FishAI

鱼阅,AI 时代的下一个智能信息助手,助你摆脱信息焦虑

联系邮箱 441953276@qq.com

相关标签

约翰尼·卡森 肯尼斯·提南 今夜秀 媒体评论 时代变迁
相关文章