One’s first reaction to the ascension—or descent—of Stephen Colbert to the helm of the CBS program soon to be formerly known as “Late Show with David Letterman” is grief: uncomprehending, possibly inconsolable grief. Why? Because, according to more than one news bulletin, the move means “the end of the character Colbert made famous on ‘The Colbert Report.’ ”
What? What? How can that be? What does that even mean?
We, his fans, have always understood, in a vague sort of way, that there exists a regular human being whose Social Security card identifies him as Stephen Colbert—a nice fellow with a nice family and a nice house in a nice New Jersey suburb. On television, though, there is no such person. There is only The Character.
For eight years—for every minute of every half-hour of every edition of “The Colbert Report”—“Stephen Colbert” has been the exuberantly prim, indefatigably dim, supremely confident faux-conservative pundit who, brandishing a rippling, man-size American flag, has swooped thrillingly down at us four nights a week. Soon he will be gone. And we, his fans, will be bereft, deprived of the consolations he offers us for, among other afflictions, the existence of Fox News.
One’s second reaction is a question. Why Colbert? Why not the other guy?
After all, it is much easier to imagine a smooth transition from “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” to “Late Show with Jon Stewart.” (For some reason, CBS insists on omitting the “The.”) I mean no disrespect to Stewart’s undoubted genius when I say that he and his program hew to the standard late-night formula more closely than do Colbert and his. On “The Daily Show,” Stewart does not play someone else. He is by all accounts the same person on camera as off. His opening riffs are delivered sitting down rather than standing up, and he uses video clips to sharpen his points, but they are formally similar to (though far more acute than) the monologues delivered by Letterman and Leno and the rest, all the way back to Carson and Paar and Steve Allen.
All three shows—“Colbert,” “Daily,” “Late”—share certain elements: a warmed-up, hopped-up studio audience; the host’s opening remarks; the host’s interview with “my guest[s] tonight.” There is some overlap between the type of guests welcomed on “Colbert” and “Daily” and those one finds on “Late Show” and its ilk, though obviously the ratio of public-affairs substance to show-biz glitz declines as one moves from left, so to speak, to right. You’re not likely to find Miley Cyrus on the former or David Cay Johnston on the latter, but a Michael Lewis or a George Clooney is equally welcome on both.
If Colbert’s interviews—meta-interviews, really—tend to be a little edgier, a little more unpredictable, than either Stewart’s or Letterman’s, one can’t help assuming that it’s because they are conducted by The Character, not the everyday husband and father. What will happen when the interviewer is Stephen Colbert, not “Stephen Colbert”? If an E! Online compilation of Colbert-as-Colbert is any guide, he’ll be charming, intelligent, and amusing. But the hint of lethality, if not altogether gone, is likely to be attenuated. The Character hasn’t had to worry about being likeable, any more than Elmer Fudd did. He’s been free to go places that an actual person can’t. The Character’s very one-dimensionality has given his interviews an interestingly three-dimensional quality.
There’s no disputing Colbert’s talent and energy, and of course he is within his rights to want to try new things after fifteen years (counting his “Daily Show” apprenticeship under Stewart) of one thing. As for Stewart, there’s been no indication that he even wanted the job, whereas Colbert is said to have pursued it assiduously. The million-dollar-a-month salary might have been a factor, too. It certainly would be for The Character, who mock-loved the ideology of the Free Market more than life itself.
An unfortunate atmosphere of reverence surrounds these legacy late-night TV jobs, as if Carson, Letterman, Paar and the rest were Popes, or even saints. The shows are encrusted with tradition and ritual. Compared to what Stewart and Colbert have wrought on Comedy Central, the offerings on the old three-letter networks, no matter how many Jimmys they’re fronted by, feel tired.
Stewart will now have to soldier on alone. The immediate loss is for liberals, for whom “Stephen Colbert” has played a unique role as a fifth column. The Character has been a miraculous and unparalleled intellectual and political achievement, sustained for a very long time at a very high level. But if the intelligence, discipline, and hard work that Colbert invested in The Character can be brought to bear on revitalizing the variety show, then the polity’s loss may turn out to be the culture’s gain. If Colbert can truly reinvent the genre, if he has the freedom and the inclination to blow it up and build on the rubble, then perhaps The Character will not have died in vain. For the moment, though, excuse me while I put on my black armband.
Photograph by Lloyd Bishop/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank/Getty.
