|
Maybe we should plan to audit Jon Stewart's fame every four years, to coincide, more or less, with the U.S. presidential campaign. And, if there is even the tiniest amount of justice, Stewart's fame will have grown, four years hence, as much as it has it the past four years. Or more. Actually, definitely more. We won't be satisfied unless Jon Stewart's fame starts to grow exponentially.
The difference we can already appreciate between Stewart's fame as of February 21, 2000, and today, is already evidence of that very cosmic justice the existence of which one must so often doubt. When we first covered Stewart, he had already spent a year or so settling in on The Daily Show, and distinguishing himself from his predecessor primarily by not acting like an insufferable douchebag all the time. (Well, to be honest, Craig Kilborn's time on TDS only looks that way in hindsight; this commentator was dubious about Stewart's nomination to succeed him, though I liked him very much even then, because I feared he couldn't be mean enough. Now I know he's just mean in a different way.) But, back then, Stewart was still The Daily Show's new guy. Now, he has so thoroughly ensconced himself that it's very hard to recall what the show was like before he came along. In other words, it used to be that Stewart was merely Kilborn's (superior) replacement. Now his hosting of The Daily Show is such a perfect match of talent and vehicle that it's like it was ordained by God himself.
That's right: we'll be the first media outlet to declare, boldly and publicly, our belief that Jon Stewart was divinely anointed to host a show on Comedy Central.
Not long ago, The Daily Show used to kick off by declaring itself "the most important television show...ever." As part of the post-September 11th movement in the media not to take stupid crap so seriously (a movement that, in light of My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé and Janet Jackson's Super Bowl nork flash, is behind us, I guess), TDS dropped the tagline -- which is a shame, because it really applies now. A significant number of North Americans say they get their news from The Daily Show. (Um. Guilty.) While Stewart self-effacingly cracks that the show's typical guest is a tertiary cast member of a WB drama, the fact is that it's become a legitimate stop at which serious people get to prove their good humour and coolness and reach out to the kids; several of the Democratic presidential candidates have appeared on TDS, as have senators, journalists, and, yesterday -- the week after his testimony at the September 11th investigation -- former terrorism czar Richard Clarke. It's not that crazy a bet to make that the candidate who wins the presidential election this year will be the one who makes the pilgrimage to Stewart at The Daily Show. A taped intro to a political-themed SNL special won't be enough; this time around, TDS will be the hip campaign stop the smart candidate won't miss.
It's not fair to the brilliant writers who toil in obscurity to ascribe all the recent success of The Daily Show to Stewart. (Stephen Colbert, in particular, deserves a lot of credit that he seldom receives.) But it's also no mere coincidence that the ways the show's mandate has changed -- focussing more on actual news and less on taped pieces that make ordinary people look dumb -- have occurred during Stewart's tenure. Hillary Clinton wasn't ever a guest in the Kilborn years, is what we're saying. Stewart is the show's perfect anchor -- both in that he's the fake Tom Brokaw of the show's fake news broadcast, and in that he holds the show firmly in place with his solid good sense and no-bullshit manner, and keeps it from getting carried away in the current (to strain the metaphor as far as it will go) of frivolity and silliness the various correspondent supply. If the show's appeal is that it is the media-savvy person's gloss on the news, then it's appropriate for Stewart to be its public face, and to stand as its emblem and representative on magazine covers and lists of the funniest people in America and on award shows (even the one at which he inexplicably lost to Wayne Brady, in a moment that rivals Martin Scorsese's losing Best Director for GoodFellas to Kevin Costner for Dances With Wolves at the 1991 Oscars for legendarily unjust showbiz perversity).
Jon Stewart is one of the very best things about one of the all-time greatest shows in TV history. Not only that, but over the past few years, his and his show's contributions to the culture have been increasingly recognized and praised (that Emmy thing notwithstanding). His position as a media gadfly/national treasure has now been cemented with a new contract that will keep him anchoring the fake news through the 2008 election. Everything's coming up Stewart.
So what more could we ask for? What more is there? As much as there is to be had, that's what we want -- nay, what we demand. Four years ago, Stewart was doing well, and was pretty famous. Then, we never could have conceived of Stewart's showing up on the cover of the end-of-2003 issue of TV Guide, much less so august a publication as Newsweek. We wouldn't have pegged him to host any major award shows. (Which he still, unfortunately, hasn't, though he did emcee the Grammys in 2001 and 2002.) We couldn't have predicted that CNN would find a way to repackage TDS for international broadcast. Yet that's all happened. So whatever more Stewart could get, in terms of fame, that we can't even guess about now, is what he deserves. Maybe Stewart could host the Oscars. Maybe a non-cable network could buy the show and expose The Daily Show to an even bigger audience. (Fox?) Maybe Stewart get his own daytime spinoff of some kind, challenge Oprah in her own time slot, and win. Maybe Stewart and Conan O'Brien could find some way to splice their DNA together and give birth to the funniest human in the history of mankind.
After the four years he's had, we just don't want to rule out any kind of good fortune that may yet come Stewart's way. As much as he's gotten, he deserves even more.
|
