In college, I was in an improv-comedy troupe, and in my first, terrifying gig, before an audience of about 300, I was one of three "contestants" in a Dating Game show format. My character was a thickly-accented Indian convenience store guy--I even wore a 7-11 shirt--and one of the first questions that came to me from the single-girl character on the stage. She asked "If you were were to wear edible underwear, what flavor would it be?" In true improv style, I was not prepared for the question, and those few seconds when I was standing on stage, staring out at the crowd, wondering what kind of underwear an Indian convenience store owner would wear, were pure torture. And then finally I blurted out: "Please, no beef!"
Silence. And then the audience roared.
That moment came back to me as I watched "Manoj," an 11-minute documentary (rather, mockumentary) by Hari Kondabolu. This is what you might call a meta-comedy, a film about funny. Specifically, a fictitious film about an Indian standup, Manoj Krishnamurthy, who has transitioned from the Hyderabad comedy circuit to America's, with remarkable success. Crowds (which you never actually see) go crazy for his material, which mines just about every stereotype imaginable:
"Let me go over some popular Hin-doo's and Hin-don'ts. Eating a sandwich: Hin-doo. Eating a beef sandwich: Hin-don't! Having sex after marriage: Hin-doo. Eating beef: Hin-don't! Riding in a rickshaw: Hin-doo. Riding a cow: Hin-don't! That's beef!"
See for yourself.
We posed a few questions to Hari Kondabolu...
SAJAforum: As an Indian-American comedian, do you find it easier to poke fun at the routine (and the audience) with a film like this, than to simply do your standup routine? Because in "Manoj" you've clearly established that a desi standup has a lot of limitations when dealing with a mainstream audience.
Hari Kondabolu: MANOJ really gave me the opportunity to explore a few issues that had been on my mind in recent years in a way I couldn’t through standup alone. I had been doing the “Manoj” character with friends for quite some time, and the original plan was to grow a full beard and have Manoj open for me at an actual show. I’d shave the beard during intermission and then do standup as myself, making for an interesting live experience as the audience would have to collectively confront what they had been laughing at. I ended up not doing this because it was just too hard to set up, and could only be done a few times (even with the incredible rate that my facial hair grows, it would still take a while). Also, with standup you are generally expected to be concise, even at the cost of content and substance. I also started to feel that people needed more time to think about what I was putting out there, opposed to immediately reacting to the stimulus at a live show.
This film is about the choices performers of color, especially those with recent immigrant backgrounds, can make on stage, the pressures to make certain decisions and the resulting effects. If your whole act is about your ethnicity, that’s fine. The question here is how are you going to discuss that? Are you just going to play into racism? Your audience is not always going to be a certain ethnicity, especially when you are dealing with television and the internet and how a joke or idea gets read varies depending on the audience’s personal knowledge and experiences. That’s when racism is propagated. Manoj, for example, is the extreme. He is a hacky South Asian comic who would do anything to make “mainstream America” (a mostly white and middle class audience) laugh. His material is about a fantasy world comprised of stereotypes. He does whatever it takes to get the job done; not seeing himself as someone whose microphone gives him any degree of influence. He’s very popular, good at what he does, makes his money and is content with this.
The film also highlights how comedians of color can be immediately viewed with a lens of race or perceived culture and this leads to an expectation of what is supposed to come out of their mouths. The audience may see an Indian person and expect certain types of material. JUST curry jokes and heavily accented impressions of parents. There can be nothing wrong with talking about this stuff, but I get frustrated with the fact my assumed starting point can be different than other comedians based on my appearance. I have to play with expectations.
SF: I saw your Jimmy Kimmel routine on your website. Most of your material was "desi," but you also dealt with Bush and the war in Iraq. What can you tell us about mixing up ethnic humor with more broad-based humor, in terms of the ratio you've experimented with and how you adapt to different audiences.
HK: Most of the Kimmel jokes were high school and college era stuff; my first batch of decent material that had been polished up.... I have a decent chunk of stuff about being South Asian, but the larger lens is about race and racism in America. Race and racism are my biggest topics. I try to use my experiences as a way to get to those bigger points.
I don’t think any of my humor is “ethnic humor.” My experience is part of the larger American experience and people need to get used to it. Once we put “ethnic” on it, it becomes the “other.” I was born here, I live here, these are my experiences as an American.
In terms of planning my sets, I think about how the audience may receive ideas, and I might add a few more things that are easier to digest to break up some of the heavier ideas, but I do not take heavy ideas out. I work around heavy ideas. I generally assume I will create some discomfort when I perform and try to find a balance between laughter and that discomfort. There aren’t really ratios here. I’ve accepted that some people will not find me funny and if I compromise the heart of my act, I lose what I’m trying to do with my art. (Of course, there are certain adjustments. If I have a mostly Desi crowd, which I generally don’t, I’ll try stuff with the hope there are some more common reference points. How often do I get the chance to make a Ramayan joke, you know?)
I definitely believe a thought process should exist regarding how your art will impact the audience and why you are saying what you are saying. With MANOJ, we hoped to complicate the common notion that laughter is the bottom line. Comedy is ultimately about making people laugh, but it can be a complicated route to that bottom line and one must acknowledge that. Who do you step on in order to get there? This is what critical art is all about.
SF: In one of your routines you talk about a guy who says Mexicans are lazy. Reminded me of an old roommate in Texas who felt the same way, but said he liked Indians because they worked hard, but of course he also meant that the Indians he knew in the Texas panhandle were doctors, not farm workers. What is the relationship between the economic success of Indians and how they're comically represented?
HK: That bit about Mexican people is more about cognitive dissonance. How can you be accused of both being “lazy” and of “taking all the jobs?” I was pointing out the irrationality of racism.
I think the issue that is more interesting than the portrayal of a certain wealthier segment of the South Asian population is, who gets to represent who? And in those representations of people of color in the mainstream media, why is there such a lack of complexity?
South Asian cabdrivers are just depicted as cabdrivers. What else are they? Who are they besides how some perceive them? They are relegated to the thickness of their accents. Imagine describing Bruce Wayne as just “some rich white dude”? No back story. No interesting things happening at home. That’s who he is completely without any complications or other parts of his life? Where are the complications? He’s Batman, dammit! It would be absurd to not get to that story.
SF: You perform a bit about the Kohinoor diamond, and the fact that the British took it out of India. There's clearly some underlying anger, and I was wondering when mainstream American audiences do and don't get it. I ask this in part because your Hari Kondabolu persona in "Manoj" is annoyed at how hard it is to perform "substantive" material on stage.
HK: The public display of anger for that joke is staged at this point since I’ve done it so many times already. The frustration is real, but publicly it is a bit more acting on my part. What’s nice about that clip online is that I improvised a response to what I see as a ridiculous audience reaction.
Also, the frustration that is there is more towards the lack of acknowledgment of the colonial legacy. Focusing on the Kohinoor is a way to draw some attention to this in a funny way.
Have you ever been to the British Museum? They have the Rosetta Stone! The freaking ROSETTA STONE! That wasn’t found in England! I think they should just display all the stuff in the back of a truck. That’s how I’m used to observing stolen goods.
Most audiences seem to appreciate the “Diamonds” joke. The issue is usually with how I deliver it. Some audiences like how aggressive I am there, and some do not. Also, the description of the Queen as a “white bitch” can be a problem. Obviously, there are politics with the word “bitch” that can make people uncomfortable and I can explain my use of it in this context another time. However, I think it’s the word “white” that freezes people too. The mentioning of whiteness is seen as unexpected, unnecessary and unreasonable. I guess people feel implicated somehow or are just not used to being racialized too.
Again, it frustrates me when people have expectations of what they think I’ll do. It can make it harder to do my material. I get called angry when white comics get called edgy. People expect JUST accents, jokes just about family, and self-deprecation. That’s what people are fed, and so that’s what they’ll swallow and digest. I hope to force something different when I can.
SF: Finally, a short film is often a calling card for filmmakers looking to write or direct a feature. What's your goal?
I really like short films as a form. I understand that there is minimal value commercially, but you can do so much, especially because of viral media, that is harder to do with full-lengths. Short films can be much easier to produce and distribute and still be high quality with smaller budgets. I’d love to work on a feature one day and if it happens: GREAT.
For now, I want to continue doing standup and improve my craft while also making short films with people I respect and enjoy working with. I don’t know what the long-term holds, so I’ll see what opportunities are there and figure it out. You know, like everybody does.
["Manoj" was screened at the Just for Laughs Festival in Montreal, and a finalist in the Boston Motion Picture Awards. It also played at the 2007 International South Asian Film Festival, the 2008 SF International Asian American Film Festival, 2008 LA Pacific Asian Film Festival, and the 2008 Asian American International Film Festival in NYC. For more information, visit Hari Kondabolu's site or his MySpace page.]
See Sepia Mutiny's discussion of "Manoj."
Earlier on SAJAforum:
- Allah Made Me Funny
- Narinder Singh's Comic Cause, in Newsweek
- "Loins of Punjab Presents" - Q&A with the Director and Screenwriter
- Martin Bashir's jokes gone overboard
- Papa CJ ends his run on "Last Comic Standing"
- The Benny Lava phenomenon
- Paul Varghese on "Last Comic Standing"
- Tracey Ullman's Bollywood pharmacist, on Showtime
- Dan Nainan, standup comic, on his travel routines
Comments