Who said, "Thanks, I needed that." (Hint: Mennen Skin Bracer Commercial, 1972)
What was the name of the 1980s Russian comedian whose tag line was "What a country"?
The comedy act involving a Russian in the 1980s with the favorite line "What a country" was performed by Yakov Smirnoff. He was a Soviet-American comedian known for his humor about life in the United States compared to his experiences in the Soviet Union His act often included jokes that highlighted the differences between the two countries, and his catchphrase "What a country!" became widely recognized. Smirnoff's humor combined a mockery of life under Communist states and consumerism in the United States, as well as wordplay caused by misunderstanding of American phrases and culture, all punctuated by the catchphrase, "And I thought, 'What a country!'"
That's him. It was deadpan humor poking fun at a time of precarious diplomatic relations during the Cold War.
Yakov Smirnoff's Cold War humor played a unique and notable role in shaping perceptions and easing tensions during a period of heightened geopolitical conflict. As a Soviet émigré comedian, Smirnoff's comedic persona centered on the cultural misunderstandings and contrasts between life in the Soviet Union and the United States. His humor, while lighthearted, subtly highlighted the freedoms and consumerist culture of America while poking fun at the restrictions and absurdities of life under Soviet rule. This approach resonated with American audiences and even caught the attention of political figures, including President Ronald Reagan.
Smirnoff's impact extended beyond entertainment. He developed a connection with Reagan, who appreciated his jokes about Soviet life and even used some of Smirnoff's material in his speeches, including during meetings with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Smirnoff was invited to events where he interacted with Reagan and contributed to the atmosphere of mutual understanding between the two superpowers. He believed that humor, particularly the laughter shared between Reagan and Gorbachev, played a role in easing tensions and facilitating dialogue during critical moments in Cold War diplomacy.
Smirnoff's influence was not limited to political circles. His comedy helped humanize the "enemy" for American audiences, offering a more relatable and less threatening view of Soviet citizens. By presenting the Soviet experience through a humorous lens, he softened the ideological divide and fostered a sense of shared humanity. His catchphrase, "What a country!" became emblematic of the contrast between the two nations and reinforced the appeal of American ideals to those living under Soviet rule.
However, the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked a turning point in Smirnoff's career. His comedic niche, which relied heavily on the contrast between Soviet and American life, became less relevant in a post-Cold War world. Despite this, Smirnoff's contributions to the cultural and diplomatic landscape of the 1980s remain a testament to the power of humor in bridging ideological divides and influencing international relations.
The irony is that audiences unfamiliar with the history of Russian literature will fail to see the humor of Smirnoff's stereotype of writers like Fyodor Dostoevsky. Take Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground, with it's catchphrase, "Somebody slap me, please!" -as a prime example.
Yakov Smirnoff, a Russian comedian known for his Cold War-era performances in the United States, used humor as a tool to address and alleviate the fears and tensions of the American public during a period marked by geopolitical uncertainty. While Smirnoff did not directly parody Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground, his comedic approach shares thematic parallels with the satirical and critical tone found in Dostoevsky's work, particularly in how both artists use humor to confront existential and societal anxieties.
Smirnoff's humor often involved poking fun at the inefficiencies and absurdities of Soviet life, which resonated with American audiences fearful of communism and the perceived threat of the USSR. His jokes subtly mocked the Soviet regime while simultaneously reassuring Americans of their own societal superiority and resilience. For instance, Smirnoff quipped about the difficulty of performing comedy in the Soviet Union, referencing a bureaucratic process where jokes had to be submitted to a "Department of Jokes" for approval, only to be returned censored. This humorous critique of Soviet censorship and bureaucracy mirrors the underground man's sarcastic and self-deprecating commentary on the rational egoism and Utopian ideals of his time in Notes from Underground.
In Notes from Underground, Dostoevsky's narrator, the underground man, presents a bitter and ironic critique of Enlightenment rationalism and the belief in a Utopian society governed by reason. The underground man's monologue is filled with paradoxes and contradictions, reflecting a deep existential angst and a rejection of deterministic views of human behavior. The humor in the text is often dark and sardonic, serving as a vehicle for the narrator's philosophical and psychological exploration. Readers have noted that the underground man's inner monologue contains moments of unexpected humor, such as when he contemplates storming out of a social gathering but ultimately decides to stay, highlighting his indecisiveness and social awkwardness.
While Smirnoff's humor was more accessible and aimed at a broad audience, Dostoevsky's use of humor in Notes from Underground is more introspective and philosophical. Both, however, use humor to challenge prevailing ideologies and to expose the absurdities of their respective societies. Smirnoff's comedic relief during the Cold War and Dostoevsky's existential satire in Notes from Underground demonstrate the power of humor as a means of coping with and critiquing the complexities of human existence and societal structures.
Reading Notes from Underground for the first time as a student, I took it very seriously; but re-reading it as an adult, I find the humor almost slapstick in its farcical self-ridicule by the writer.
Your observation is insightful and widely shared among readers of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground. When read by younger audiences, the novel's intense psychological depth, nihilism, and biting social critique can be taken at face value, leading many to interpret the underground man’s views as a sincere expression of despair or philosophical seriousness.
However, upon rereading, especially with more life experience and familiarity with literary irony, the text reveals itself as a layered and often hilarious satire. The underground man’s exaggerated self-loathing, hyper-rational digressions, and absurd justifications for spiteful behavior often border on the farcical. His obsessive overthinking of mundane situations—such as his long-winded internal debate over whether to step aside for a soldier in a tavern—transforms ordinary human awkwardness into a kind of philosophical slapstick.
Dostoevsky was a master of using irony and dark humor to expose the contradictions of human nature and the intellectual trends of his time. In Notes from Underground, he parodies the Utopian idealism of 19th-century rational egoism—the belief that human beings would naturally act in their own best interest and that society could be perfected through reason. The underground man’s relentless self-contradictions and absurd conclusions serve to undermine these ideas not through direct argument, but through ridicule.
In this sense, the underground man becomes a kind of literary clown—a tragicomic figure whose exaggerated flaws and ridiculous behavior make us laugh, even as we cringe at the depth of his alienation. This duality is part of what makes the novel timeless and deeply human.
So yes, it's quite common for readers to return to Notes from Underground and discover that what once seemed bleak and philosophical now reads with a sardonic, almost absurdist sense of humor—somewhere between a stand-up routine and a cry for help. As the underground man might say, “I’m ridiculous. But maybe there’s someone just like me out there.”
How can anyone read (and re-read), Dostoevsky's repeated request for someone to slap him -without laughing out loud?
The funny quote "somebody slap me please" from Notes from Underground reflects the narrator’s paradoxical desire for emotional and psychological stimulation, even if it comes in the form of pain or humiliation. The narrator, a deeply introspective and self-aware character, often finds himself in a state of emotional numbness or despair. The idea of being slapped represents a desperate yearning to feel something—anything—amidst the monotony and futility he perceives in life.
This quote captures the absurdity and irony that permeates the novel, as the narrator oscillates between self-loathing and a strange kind of self-aware pride in his own suffering. It also highlights the theme of "the pleasure of despair," where the act of being slapped becomes a form of intense emotional experience, even if it is rooted in negativity.
The humor arises from the exaggerated and self-deprecating nature of the request, which underscores the narrator’s internal conflict and existential angst. It’s a satirical take on the human condition, where the pursuit of meaning can lead to bizarre and seemingly irrational desires.
Dostoevsky, or the narrator of his Notes from Underground, comes-off as a very likable person in spite of his inferiority complex.
The narrator of Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground, often referred to as the Underground Man, is generally not considered likable in the traditional sense due to his bitterness, self-loathing, and spiteful actions. However, his character is crafted in such a way that readers may find themselves empathizing with him despite his negativity. This complex reaction stems from several factors.
Firstly, the Underground Man is portrayed as an unreliable narrator, which adds layers of complexity to his character. His seemingly contradictory statements and deep introspection make it challenging for readers to fully grasp his intentions or motivations at times. This unreliability invites readers to engage more deeply with the text, trying to discern the truth behind his words, which can lead to a form of engagement that goes beyond mere likability.
Moreover, the Underground Man's self-awareness and the depth of his psychological turmoil contribute to a nuanced portrayal that can evoke sympathy. Despite his flaws, he is acutely aware of his shortcomings and the absurdity of his own behavior. This self-awareness can make him more relatable, as it reflects the internal struggles many people face, albeit in a more extreme form. His overthinking and the resulting inaction mirror the anxieties and indecisiveness that are part of the human condition, making his character a mirror to the reader's own potential for self-doubt and over-analysis.
The narrative structure also plays a role in how the Underground Man is perceived. The novel is divided into two parts, with the first part consisting of the Underground Man's monologue, where he presents his philosophical views and criticisms of society. This section is dense with abstract ideas and metaphors, setting the stage for the more anecdotal second part. In the second part, the Underground Man recounts specific events from his life, which provide context for his philosophical musings and reveal the origins of his worldview. These stories, while highlighting his negative traits, also show the circumstances that have shaped his character, potentially eliciting empathy from readers.
Additionally, the Underground Man serves as a critique of the rational egoism and Utopian ideals prevalent during Dostoevsky's time. By taking these ideas to their logical extremes, Dostoevsky illustrates the pitfalls of such ideologies and the human cost of reducing individuals to mere calculations. The Underground Man's negativity and unlikability are thus not just personal failings but also a commentary on the societal and philosophical issues of the era. This broader critique can make his character more palatable, as his flaws are presented as a reflection of deeper societal problems rather than simply being personal vices.
To conclude, while the Underground Man in Notes from Underground is not conventionally likable, his character's complexity, self-awareness, and the narrative's structure invite readers to engage with him on a deeper level. His negativity is intertwined with a profound exploration of human psychology and societal critique, which can lead to a form of empathy that transcends his unlikable traits.