"Well, he wasn't very funny."
"Why do you say that?"
"Well, no one was really laughing. So he obviously wasn't very funny."
Why didn't they laugh?
The reason the laughing wasn't very pronounced was because they were put in a position where them laughing would have been seen as even more rude than Colbert was being making the jokes.
Colbert had an excuse because he was hired to be up there and make jokes at various people's expense.
Colbert's jokes, however, were of a different cut than your basic roast jokes. Roast jokes are of the form "insult insult (but I love ya)", where the parenthetical is not voiced but obvious. Colbert's were more of the form "insult insult (twist knife)".
The audience could sense that. And the audience could sense that everyone else sensed that. And so if they laughed, they wouldn't be joining in the (but I love ya) stuff, but the (twist knife) stuff.
And they were scared of repercussions. They were scared to laugh. So they didn't. Well, Scalia did, but who's he got to be scared of?
It was actually the perfect counterpoint to the WMD jokes a couple of years back. I actually sort of see it as energetically balancing that whole event - that was an example of where people were laughing at the WMD jokes because they were scared not to. Bush got his just desserts for that one.
I still can't quite put my finger on what Colbert did. It was sort of passive aggressive, except completely aggressive and courageous. I've totally changed my mind from how I initially felt. It was definitely a cultural moment. Not a cultural moment in terms of jumping on a sofa and declaring your love for Katie Holmes, but a cultural moment in terms of throwing monetary bills into the pit of a stock exchange (who was that?).
I think it was brilliant now, because I now see that Colbert was basically a metaphorical horror movie. He stood up there and held the audience prisoner in a construct of their own device, and just basically taunted them by using all of their denials against them. It was basically the sort of thing that someone truly evil would do, except that he did it for the powers of good.
The thing I still can't understand, however, is that he didn't really change his character all that much - what he did was predictable. I think the only reason he got through is because either the people that hired him were completely dense and stupid and didn't get his act, which I really doubt given that journalists really do tend to understand satire, or more likely, that everyone made the automatic assumption that Colbert would tone down his act and be nice and clubby and (but I love ya) since that was what the whole event was about. And of course he would, because it's the President, and people should be cowed in front of power, shouldn't they?
But he didn't, and he wasn't. And he embarrassed everyone. On purpose.
So yes - it'll always be a real cultural moment. It was art. Real art, the kind that grows with time.
You think the organizers aren't going to use him as a cautionary tale next year? "Do your routine, but you're not to go all Colbert on him like last year. That was a disaster."