An unnecessarily lengthy commentary after watching Dan Howell's 2024 stageshow.
My credentials: I watched Dan and Phil a lot as a kid, I went to II in 2018, I was fully in the trenches. And I really didn’t like this show. I just watched Terrible Influence earlier this week, loved it for the nostalgia and stage presence. But WAD does not scratch that same itch in the slightest.
I find this an interesting review to make, as I occupy the strange space of someone who didn’t like this but also still is absolutely the “tumblr theatre kid” archetype most of the negative reviews of this show poke at.
The theme of the show, the inevitable descent toward our eventual doom is all well and good. A bit overdone, maybe, but it fits in with Dan’s branding, and as his first solo show, it does make sense to play into what he knows. However, the layout, set design, and writing just did not live up to expectations.
First: the premise. Dan takes us through a sequence of pessimistically-framed comedy segments surrounding the dooms of our day to day: capitalism, data mining, internet surveillance and algorithms. It’s not a bad premise, but I found each segment to be both shoehorned in and much too scattered. Discussing those topics is not inherently the issue, but each piece just felt more and more nonsensical. The audience-input games were straight out of II and TATINOF, which does make sense, but as a solo act, the relationship between Dan and the audience is much different (more on that in a second). The second leg of the show takes a complete energy flip, with Dan sitting on the stage and confronting some very real (if heavy-handed) topics relating to homophobia, mental health, and global future. This segment felt almost invasive to watch, even after over a decade of being aware of this man on the internet. It wasn’t as much the topics that were the issue–videos on his channel that discuss his mental health and sexuality cover these things in much the same way–but the overall theme of the show’s feeding into this segment.
It is always difficult for me to wage comparisons between artists in this way, but as it seems Dan is attempting to emulate with this show, I feel less negative about it. This entire stageshow, from the beginning song to the ending introspective monologue, felt like a mimicry of Bo Burnham, specifically the internet views posited in Inside and the overall flow of Make Happy. Even some of the jokes–“please buy a t-shirt” “what did I do with the ticket money?” “ART IS FUCKING DEAD”--present themselves as parallels to Burnham; the moments of him watching his younger self on a screen three times his size call back to Inside. It is an understandable comparison: two young men growing up as comedic figures on the internet and now attempting to make sense of their place in it as 30-somethings. But the conclusions reached by their shows are very different. Burnham’s comedy never attempts to justify itself. As much as he tackles topics like mental health, online responsibility, and the pressures of an audience, he never breaks the facade to directly say “I am This, let me say these things.” His comedy isn’t perfect, but he presents it as a way to work through his grappling with the world, which is exactly how Dan attempts to justify his work.
I believe that Dan Howell has a myriad of valuable things to say about internet fame, global consciousness, even just comedy. But I don’t think any of this comes across in this show. The comedy itself is cheap at best and distasteful at worst. The innuendos present throughout also present an interesting point of commentary. Dan has been known throughout his career to have an “edgier” sense of humor, but this show felt over the top in a way that was genuinely embarrassing. As much as I have tried to look at this piece from an individual perspective, bringing in context from his internet persona is important. The reason Dan and Phil works with this sort of humor is due to the inherent accountability of someone else beside you on stage, or on camera. TATINOF, Interactive Introverts, and Terrible Influence are all chock full of innuendos, overtly sexual references, and the occasional ad-libbed bit. But they have the accountability of someone else present. In this show, it’s just Dan and the audience, and he makes it very clear very early on that heckling and interactivity is not a negative element. This isn’t inherently show-ruining, but the audience gets rowdier throughout, only to be choked silent by the absolutely inappropriate nature of any comments being waged as Dan is discussing childhood homophobia and suicidal ideation. Overall, the show doesn’t flow well, and the individual presenter nature paired with an already parasocial crowd is deeply irritating.
Finally, I suppose, the politics of it all. Dan transitions a mention of the conflict in Palestine to a moment that encourages online virtue signaling and posting. While the mention feels distasteful in itself, the point could’ve been made entirely separately. To bring it back to Burnham: there is a segment in Inside that presents a statement contemplating our individual ability to communicate about any given topic at any time. “Is it… is it necessary? Is it necessary that every single person on this planet… expresses every single opinion that they have on every single thing that occurs all at the same time?” I feel that this segment is vital in discussion here, not only because it is coming from someone Dan obviously is attempting to emulate, but also in the sense that Dan and Bo both view the internet and those on it with the perspective of a “personality.” Where Bo reaches out to critique the discussions regarding these global events by literally millions of individuals, Dan takes time out in his show to discuss them, to virtue signal just as much in his stageshow as online. It left a bad taste in my mouth.
It is absolutely valid to say that using your platform for authenticity and advocacy is vital. But the way Dan comes to this conclusion never incorporates listening to diverse voices, looking into community care, anything. He mentions recycling, shopping local, etc, but as with the rest of the show, his discussions of advocacy feel ten years out of date for someone presenting a show like this.
Now don’t get me wrong, I like Dan’s content, especially now. But this show was thoroughly disappointing to me. I have felt the “growing up alongside” attitude many people discuss when displaying his content, but this show felt immature and dated, even a year and a half old. And listen, I’m not against a well-placed innuendo, but I drew my blinds about fifteen minutes into this show and STILL worried my neighbors would look in and see. I’ve rambled too long about this piece of media and there are still things I wish to critique about it, but I’ll leave it here.
I wish this actually was his deepfake clone performing. Would make a lot more sense.
The theme of the show, the inevitable descent toward our eventual doom is all well and good. A bit overdone, maybe, but it fits in with Dan’s branding, and as his first solo show, it does make sense to play into what he knows. However, the layout, set design, and writing just did not live up to expectations.
First: the premise. Dan takes us through a sequence of pessimistically-framed comedy segments surrounding the dooms of our day to day: capitalism, data mining, internet surveillance and algorithms. It’s not a bad premise, but I found each segment to be both shoehorned in and much too scattered. Discussing those topics is not inherently the issue, but each piece just felt more and more nonsensical. The audience-input games were straight out of II and TATINOF, which does make sense, but as a solo act, the relationship between Dan and the audience is much different (more on that in a second). The second leg of the show takes a complete energy flip, with Dan sitting on the stage and confronting some very real (if heavy-handed) topics relating to homophobia, mental health, and global future. This segment felt almost invasive to watch, even after over a decade of being aware of this man on the internet. It wasn’t as much the topics that were the issue–videos on his channel that discuss his mental health and sexuality cover these things in much the same way–but the overall theme of the show’s feeding into this segment.
It is always difficult for me to wage comparisons between artists in this way, but as it seems Dan is attempting to emulate with this show, I feel less negative about it. This entire stageshow, from the beginning song to the ending introspective monologue, felt like a mimicry of Bo Burnham, specifically the internet views posited in Inside and the overall flow of Make Happy. Even some of the jokes–“please buy a t-shirt” “what did I do with the ticket money?” “ART IS FUCKING DEAD”--present themselves as parallels to Burnham; the moments of him watching his younger self on a screen three times his size call back to Inside. It is an understandable comparison: two young men growing up as comedic figures on the internet and now attempting to make sense of their place in it as 30-somethings. But the conclusions reached by their shows are very different. Burnham’s comedy never attempts to justify itself. As much as he tackles topics like mental health, online responsibility, and the pressures of an audience, he never breaks the facade to directly say “I am This, let me say these things.” His comedy isn’t perfect, but he presents it as a way to work through his grappling with the world, which is exactly how Dan attempts to justify his work.
I believe that Dan Howell has a myriad of valuable things to say about internet fame, global consciousness, even just comedy. But I don’t think any of this comes across in this show. The comedy itself is cheap at best and distasteful at worst. The innuendos present throughout also present an interesting point of commentary. Dan has been known throughout his career to have an “edgier” sense of humor, but this show felt over the top in a way that was genuinely embarrassing. As much as I have tried to look at this piece from an individual perspective, bringing in context from his internet persona is important. The reason Dan and Phil works with this sort of humor is due to the inherent accountability of someone else beside you on stage, or on camera. TATINOF, Interactive Introverts, and Terrible Influence are all chock full of innuendos, overtly sexual references, and the occasional ad-libbed bit. But they have the accountability of someone else present. In this show, it’s just Dan and the audience, and he makes it very clear very early on that heckling and interactivity is not a negative element. This isn’t inherently show-ruining, but the audience gets rowdier throughout, only to be choked silent by the absolutely inappropriate nature of any comments being waged as Dan is discussing childhood homophobia and suicidal ideation. Overall, the show doesn’t flow well, and the individual presenter nature paired with an already parasocial crowd is deeply irritating.
Finally, I suppose, the politics of it all. Dan transitions a mention of the conflict in Palestine to a moment that encourages online virtue signaling and posting. While the mention feels distasteful in itself, the point could’ve been made entirely separately. To bring it back to Burnham: there is a segment in Inside that presents a statement contemplating our individual ability to communicate about any given topic at any time. “Is it… is it necessary? Is it necessary that every single person on this planet… expresses every single opinion that they have on every single thing that occurs all at the same time?” I feel that this segment is vital in discussion here, not only because it is coming from someone Dan obviously is attempting to emulate, but also in the sense that Dan and Bo both view the internet and those on it with the perspective of a “personality.” Where Bo reaches out to critique the discussions regarding these global events by literally millions of individuals, Dan takes time out in his show to discuss them, to virtue signal just as much in his stageshow as online. It left a bad taste in my mouth.
It is absolutely valid to say that using your platform for authenticity and advocacy is vital. But the way Dan comes to this conclusion never incorporates listening to diverse voices, looking into community care, anything. He mentions recycling, shopping local, etc, but as with the rest of the show, his discussions of advocacy feel ten years out of date for someone presenting a show like this.
Now don’t get me wrong, I like Dan’s content, especially now. But this show was thoroughly disappointing to me. I have felt the “growing up alongside” attitude many people discuss when displaying his content, but this show felt immature and dated, even a year and a half old. And listen, I’m not against a well-placed innuendo, but I drew my blinds about fifteen minutes into this show and STILL worried my neighbors would look in and see. I’ve rambled too long about this piece of media and there are still things I wish to critique about it, but I’ll leave it here.
I wish this actually was his deepfake clone performing. Would make a lot more sense.
Read this review on letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/waywarded/film/daniel-howell-were-all-doomed/1/
No comments:
Post a Comment