Women Aren't Funny: Chicago's Second Citizens Speak

Everyone is "on" at the The Second City. This I learned one afternoon as I meandered through the halls of the training center on the fourth floor of the The Second City building in downtown Chicago. A group of about fifteen guys rambled out of out a room Diana Lopez Negrete, Ritija Gupta and Liz Reuss had reserved for their rehearsal and interview with me. Officially, now, they had been ejected from the room--it was mistakenly double-booked--and even as each one passed on their way out the door they didn't stop clowning, "This isn't over" one said. Another growled intimidatingly. The women I was about to speak with, on the other hand, were rather relaxed and ready to talk.

[Pamela Kerpius]: What’s the difference between you writing a female character in sketches and one of your male counterparts doing the same thing? Is there a difference?

[Diana Lopez Negrete]: Oh, I think so. Definitely. I think when I write for a female character I tend to make her a little less of a shrew. I tend to give her a bit more to play with than just a two line “I’m your girlfriend,” then she walks off stage kind of a part. I feel like a lot guys tend to do that when they write female characters: the women are bitchy, and you know, they’re there to make the guy look funny. Not all men do that, and it doesn’t happen all the time, but you can definitely see it in certain sketches.

Does that happen often? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I’m curious if that’s something that happens often enough that it’s a problem.

[Ritija Gupta]: I think in a lot of classes I’ve taken at Second City for writing, people have encouraged one another, males especially, to write more for either women or gender neutral characters. One of our assignments has been to write for a gender that’s the opposite of your own. Our instructor even noted that for women it was going to be sort of a no-brainer, but for men it would be more difficult because men a lot of times by default figure that their proxy—because you’re going to put a proxy in there, or a straight man—is pretty much going to be male. Because that’s just what they know.

[Liz Reuss]: It’s a logistical thing too though. In our writing class it’s predominantly male.

What is the ratio?

[DLN]: About 4 women and 8 guys.

[LR]: So two-thirds male. We do this too, even as women, just numerically a lot of times we come up with more male characters than female; and the structure at Second City is 3 men, 3 women, so even if we’re writing an ensemble scene, it’s something that we have to keep in mind as we’re writing these sketches that, okay, you have a scene with six men, logistically that’s going to be really difficult to stage at Second City because they try to have balanced ensembles. But I know I’ve written scenes where there are too many women, or there are too many men. The balance is good though because it helps you think beyond what your first comfort level is, which might be writing a scene with all men the first time around; the second round you rethink how you want to do that.

Do you find that when you’re writing you immediately default to a male character?

[LR]: I actually find that sometimes I do when I’m writing comedy. I started out as a short story writer when I was in college and all of my characters were female, because I was writing it from my perspective. Almost each of my protagonists had a little bit of me in them; and now I think I’m writing from what I’ve seen in the past on TV and stage, which is comprised mostly of men. So I’m writing for what I saw rather than what I experienced. I think as more women come into comedy that’s starting to change, but it started out being more men than women so that’s who ended up being what I’d write about. And that goes back to when I first started watching TV, when I first saw Saturday Night Live.

[RG]: Also, a part of that—well, there are two things. One, is that as a writer, when you write for yourself you treat your characters a bit differently than when you write for the stage and you know there is going to be an audience there looking at you. A lot of times women and men are more compelled to see characters with men as leads because they’re more identifiable to both genders, than with women as leads. I think that’s because women are taught from an early age to understand the male experience as well as the female experience, but men don’t necessarily have that obligation. It doesn’t mean men don’t understand the female experience, but they’re not trained to understand and negotiate it in the same sense that a woman has to. That’s not to say that women are oppressed because they understand the male experience. For me, growing up I was a product of a single-parent household and my mom definitely had to adjust her expectations and negotiate the man’s perspective.

So I think just in general, at least for me, looking at it from a marketing perspective, if you’re going to market your work you need to make sure your audience is not going to be immediately alienated. To finish that thought, recently I was at this stand-up showcase—and I was ashamed of myself for saying this, but I kind of meant it as well—there were four male stand-ups and one female stand-up, and one of my friends was in the line up and I asked him, “Is she going to do lady bio jokes?” And I was just like, aw, man, that’s not nice. But at the same time, I really don’t want to hear humor regarding female biology. It’s like, the moment I see that there’s going to be a woman on stage who’s a female stand-up comic, immediately my mind goes to, well, she’s going to talk about her period—stuff that’s just so alienating to men, and to some women too. She ended up being far less one-sided than I thought she was going to be, but she still did end up talking a lot about vibrators, and being a lesbian, things like that. It is part of her experience so it’s legitimate to talk about, but it even felt like it was alienating to me—part of, ostensibly, the group she would want to appeal to.

In terms of your audience and not wanting to alienate them, what is the writing process like in general?

[RG]: I think Diana made a really good point—and I want to let her speak too—but she made a good point about not having [the female character] be a shrew, because I feel the moment I put a female character in there, I need to not make her a stereotype. Because it’s just too easy to fall into that King of Queens, fat man-thin wife setup where she’s constantly berating him. I’ve seen these V8 commercials with a couple, and the man keeps piling meat onto his plate while the woman is bopping him on the head; I see that and it’s just so alienating, because the woman is this plot device and it’s difficult to watch that. So when I write I try to give the woman as much of a soul and a sense of affability as possible. Otherwise she’s just going to fall into that same pit.

[DLN]: Yep. I agree. And you can see it sometimes on stage. I saw a sketch at SketchFest recently, and the women were clearly devices. They came on and played the girlfriend then left the stage. They played mom. They did this one thing—speaking of vag humor—it was a “The More You Know” bit, and the women’s version was all about abortion. And I thought, come on, do you really have to do that after you’ve been on stage for thirty-seconds? You watch that, and it’s frustrating because these women are clearly allowing themselves to be devices; if they’ve been in a group as long as you have to be together to perform at Sketch Fest, which is quite some time, I just think the women in this case are allowing the men in the group let them be a device.

That reminds me of Sarah Silverman, because her whole act seems to be mocking that. You know, she talks about abortion, sexual abuse, dating, and screwing Matt Damon—that’s the latest one…

[DLN]: Guys love her. Every guy I’ve ever known thinks she’s the bee’s knees. But then again, that says something. I have a lot of girlfriends who love her too, but…

[RG]: I feel like in every article I’ve read about Sarah Silverman they also talk about her appearance. I think part of her shtick and part of the reason she’s been able to be a success is that she makes all these provocative statements, but it is such a clear disconnect from her outside appearance. I wonder about that. Thinking about other female comediennes who have made it far today—you’ve got Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, and Sarah Silverman—and it’s not that less attractive females can’t make it in the comedic world, but I think part of the appeal is also the ability to have both genders identify with you, to like you.

[DLN]: She has a likable look.

[RG]: Right, a “likable look,” not enough to be alienating to women, but enough to be engaging to men.

[LR]: I don’t think that’s always true. I know that there’s a pressure. But if you look at comediennes like Roseanne Barr or Rosie O’Donnell there is definitely a physical difference. They were able to make pretty big headway. On the flipside to that, they did suffer a lot more scorn, there were a lot more roadblocks, but they sort of carved a different persona. I think there’s a danger of falling into a stereotype depending on what you look like as a woman, depending on the kind of characters you play; to a certain degree that happens to men as well—you know, the Chris Farleys, and that kind of thing—but, with women I think there’s a little bit more danger of being typecast in that way.

I think one thing that’s really hard as a woman is to both not fall into stereotypes and at the same time not be so hyper-aware of it that it’s going to impede your writing. If you’re trying so hard to not make one of your characters a stereotype, or make them not say something that’s slightly off-color or offensive, it’s going to blunt the humor. I think that’s the key for a lot of different groups, whether you’re a minority, either racially or religiously; there are the black jokes, the Jewish jokes, the women jokes, and I think all comics, if you fall into that you can play it up. Looking beyond that and trying to be a more full-fledged comedian is really hard.

[RG]: I agree with you up to a point. Rosie and Roseanne are both comics who broke the mold a little bit—and I don’t mean that as a pejorative—but, they’re also much more polarizing comediennes than a lot of other females…

Like Tina Fey, or…

[RG]: Like Tina Fey, exactly. You think about people like Rosie O’Donnell, and I think she just got voted as the most unlikable celebrity, or something like that, and that’s not something that other women who are a little bit more conventional perhaps, necessarily have to deal with. The other thing I would say is, I do agree with you, there is a danger in being hyper-aware of the people that you’re writing and to attempt to not fall into certain traps, but I still think that as both a woman and as a part of a minority group that, for instance, it’s easier for me to write an Indian character than it is for me to write a woman character. Gender is one of those things that raise the hairs on everyone’s necks more than, say, ethnicity does. If I saw a sketch about Croatian culture, for instance, I’m not going to object as easily to the content because I don’t know much about it; but with women I think I take more issue with it because I am a part of that group. I’m familiar with it so I take it to task. If you’re familiar with something you hold it to a higher standard.

[DLN]: Because comedy is so reality-based it changes and transforms with the times. So the people who are accepted as comedians or actors also change; there are always, obviously, certain stereotypes that it’s hard to get away from, like the “fat funny guy,” but women, I think, in particular have to transform with that because we have become such a conscientious society with our looks, with obesity, and what we have on TV are mostly good-looking attractive people. I’m just saying that if there were a Roseanne Barr now who was very in-your-face and aggressive, it wouldn’t be as accepted.

So what do you think about someone like Amy Sedaris then, who is absolutely in-your-face and who plays kind of gross characters?

[DLN]: She is, but she’s also sweet and attractive. And she transforms her entire appearance so you don’t know it’s “Amy Sedaris.” She wears a lot of makeup and costumes to mask that. She also has a cookbook and has gone on Martha Stewart with it; Roseanne Barr would never be invited to go on Martha Stewart.



So are you saying that because Amy Sedaris is attractive her comedy is more palatable? Especially compared to someone like Roseanne—I mean, they’re very different personalities, but they are both rather raunchy.

[DLN]: I don’t think it hurts.

[LR]: But I have to say, I agree with a lot of what’s being said so I don’t mean to constantly take the other side, but I know the first introduction I had with Amy Sedaris was in Strangers With Candy (the TV show). When I finally saw what she actually looked like I was stunned. Some people knew who she was prior to Strangers With Candy, but the larger American public was introduced to her through that show, which made her look totally unattractive but completely hilarious. Now I’m not sure if she was able to get to that point because she was more attractive, but her general introduction to America was not as a pretty person.

[RG]: I think that’s the thing, when you’re a comedienne you really are more than your character, and you have to market yourself that way. When Amy Sedaris began appearing on Letterman I was shocked by what a stunning woman she was. Take someone like Roseanne on David Letterman and she’s going to have a much different presence than Amy Sedaris. They’ll show a clip from Strangers With Candy (2005) and just be in awe of her transformation. But Roseanne doesn’t really have a choice, she can’t turn that off.

[DLN]: Yeah, with Amy Sedaris people are taken aback—they don’t expect her to be this sweet little woman who offers them cheese balls.

Blue-ball cheese balls…

[laughter]

[RG]: In comedy it just seems that you have to be very savvy and palatable to a wider audience to really make it.

With that in mind, who are some of your favorite comedians on film, or which are your favorite film comedies?

[LR]: The two that keep popping up in my mind are When Harry Met Sally (1989) and more recently, Little Miss Sunshine (2006). Both are very similar in that they have strong ensemble casts. In When Harry Met Sally there’s a really strong supporting cast, Little Miss Sunshine has a strong supporting cast as well, and I think men, women, children, every character across the board in either of those movies are realistic and identifiable, and the script is great in both of those too.

[DLN]: If I had to pick a recent movie that I love it would be Juno (2007). It’s such a strong script with strong characters; everyone in the movie—Allison Janney and Ellen Page…

Even Jennifer Garner. Her character ends up being so likable in the end, and it’s her husband who becomes demonized.



[LR]: That was one of my favorite parts of the movie too. That happens a lot of time in real life, when you meet someone and they’re really cool and hip sometimes they don’t have as much substance as the people that maybe seem a little corny, that maybe seem a little square, or the staid people who stick by their commitments. So yes, Vanessa’s (Jennifer Garner) character was one of my favorite arcs as well.

[RG]: I was just thinking that some of the comedies I like the best are ones that don’t really look at women’s issues. In Juno there’s an unwed mother, which is essentially a women’s issue, but it's a story made so accessible to the entire population.

[LR]: One of the things I read in an interview with Diablo Cody was that she went to high school with a girl who got pregnant and was called the “cautionary whale.” She first hand watched her friend go through what it was like to be a pregnant high-schooler. And you know, I think we’ve all seen those after-school special type of movies that discuss high school pregnancies, and they’re always very dramatic and cautionary; and Juno doesn’t at all glorify young pregnancy, not by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s a new way of telling that story. This ties in directly with more women being involved in performance and the writing process, because that story has never been told from that perspective. It’s a new way to look at it.

[DLN]: When I started the program here at Second City they told us to “write what you know.” If you’re trying to write something you don’t know anything about it’s going to get bogged down; but if you know about something, it’s coming from a part of you that’s true, and that’s going to resonate with the audience.

-------------------------
Ritija Gupta is a student at The Second City writing program, has directed the sketch revue "Mass Recall" (Dec. 2007) and co-wrote "Inhumane Society," which recently closed at Donny's Skybox theater; she has a B.A. from the University of Chicago in Public Policy and Psychology, an M.A. from Georgetown University in Public Policy, and will enter Columbia University's MBA program this fall. If you're tired of comedy you can read her very serious public policy thesis online right here.

Diana Lopez Negrete is currently in The Second City conservatory program and is primarily interested in writing. She recently co-starred in "Inhumane Society," and in The Deviated Septum's all female show "The Morning After." Her latest show "Spill Your Secrets" opened last Thursday.

Liz Reuss also starred in "The Morning After." She is a freelance writer for Citysearch, and has contributed to the Pioneer Press newspaper network. She is also a short story writer and currently manages the news department of a Chicago media company. Her focus is on sketch writing at The Second City.