The addition of Klein brings the number of women on the show's writing staff (not including performers, who also write) to at least three (update: a source claims the new total is six), and while it's not totally unheard of for the show to staff up mid-season, it's hard not to see Klein's addition as part of a welcome response by a late night show to all of the media attention they've gotten as an industry this fall about a dire lack of female writers; this news, especially mid-season, feels like part of a very exciting shift.

You might remember Klein from her appearances on Best Week Ever or The Showbiz Show with David Spade, where she was a regular talking head/correspondent, respectively. Or from her stand-up — she's a fixture in the "alternative" comedy scene in both NYC and LA. But Klein's most legendary success so far occurred behind the scenes, when, as a member of the development staff at Comedy Central in the early '00s, she was the primary network champion of a little sketch comedy show called Chappelle's Show.

The most compelling reason for the dearth of female comedy writers in late night TV was presented last month by former Letterman writer Nell Scovell, who attributed the problem partly to male writers feeling uncomfortable around women in a writer's room, or whatever. We all know that's a bullshit attitude for a person (other than Christopher Hitchens) to have in 2009, but it takes time for entire industries to change the way they've always done things. If anyone needs any assurance that Klein, and female comedy writers in general, can more than hold their own when it comes to dirty jokes in a ribald creative setting, they need look no further than a story she told on stage at the storytelling series The Moth called "Dale," the podcast version of which, it so happens, I had to stop listening to on the subway last week because I was laughing so hard people were starting to stare. (And I'd already heard it at least twice.)

The first person who shared this news with me, a comedian, was careful to say it was just a rumor (a rep for NBC has since confirmed). "But if it's not true," she said, "A lot of us will be really sad." That's not even a melodramatic sentiment, when, in 2009, the top three network late night shows still have zero women writers. Get it together, Dave and Conan. (As for Jay, you're, um, fine.)

Related: Jessi Klein [Official Site]
Among Late-Night Writers, Few Women in the Room [NY Times]
Letterman And Me [Vanity Fair]
The Moth: Jessi Klein: Dale [Last FM]

As Latoya mentioned earlier this morning, SNL has strenuously denied the rumors - publicized by E! - that Casey Wilson was dismissed from the cast because of her failure to lose 30 pounds. So, good?

But wait, Tom Shales suggested that the problem for Wilson and Michaela Watkins was excessive attractiveness, remarking in the Washington Post that "cute Casey Wilson and glamorous Michaela Watkins have concurrently left... Watkins may have been just too classically pretty to be hilarious." He goes on to trot out the old "pretty women can't be funny" cliche:

I thought Ms Watkins looked like a model; very elegant, quite quite pretty. It seemed like maybe comedy is too messy a business for someone like her. I couldn't see her letting herself get messed up for laughs — not that there's much slapstick any more, it's just that comedy is by its nature indecorous, if there is such a word.

Julie Klausner points out tartly that "Tom Shales is marinating in his own version of the sexism that prioritizes funny women's looks over their chops" - a claim that Alex Leo slyly takes down on the HuffPo - but I don't even think we need to reiterate that old argument. What struck me as so farcical was that in one week, these women were deemed too unattractive, and too attractive, to be funny. Not once have I seen anyone suggest that maybe they weren't as talented as the new cast members, in a show that's notorious for restless lineups. I'm not even suggesting this is the case - but it's ludicrous to me that people find those criticisms more damaging and delicate than claims that the dismissals must have been looks-based. Criticism of our looks, apparently, women can handle. Anything else is just too sensitive.

For 'SNL,' Doubts Follow A Banner Year [Washington Post]

Tom Shales Is So Right, Beautiful Women Are Terrible At Comedy [Huffington Post]
Julie Klausner [Official Site]

Related: Did SNL Fire Casey Wilson Over Her Weight?

Of course, roasts are intended as a parade of the foulest, most offensive, base jokes. And while the ones about Joan could understandably be interpreted as misogynist - and wholly unoriginal - apparently everybody's appearances/genitals were fair game. (Tom Arnold got grief for being fat, Brad Garrett for looking like Frankenstein, and Carl Reiner for having old, saggy balls.) Besides, Joan was laughing the whole time. (Or at least, the minimal movement in her face seemed to imply so.)

My favorite part, though, was when Joan went after Gilbert Gottfried for having the longest set. I love that she made fun of him for not having his eyes open.

In a reference to South Park's infamous April Fools' Day episode, when creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone ran a Terrance and Philip special rather than revealing the identity of Cartman's father, in the new episode the boys find that instead of part two of a Terrance and Philip episode, the network is airing an episode of The Queef Sisters. Their schtick is exactly the same as Terrance and Philip's, but while the men fart on each other, the ladies blow air out of their vaginas.

Soon queefing has swept the nation and, as seen in the clip above, the Queef Sisters share their talent on Regis and Kelly and Martha Stewart shows how to make queefs more festive. The men of South Park are repulsed by the new fad, but the women argue that it's no different than farting. The men finally realize the error of their ways when Stan's mom delivers a feminist speech on the real meaning of the right to queef, saying, "This has been about women having a little bit of fun for once at your expense. For once we could be the immature ones to make you feel uncomfortable."

It seems some men missed the point of the episode, as IGN reviewer Travis Fickett called the episode, "a textbook example of a disappointing South Park," adding:

Maybe there's new ground to break with fart jokes. It's doubtful, but possible - but this episode doesn't come anywhere close. It actually just becomes boring. What is it even trying to say? Is the big idea that there's some kind of double standard because men find farts funny but queefs disgusting? Are queefs anything that anyone anywhere has to deal with on an even semi-regular basis?

In The A.V. Club review, Josh Modell was less harsh but said:

Mrs. Marsh's big speech about women being second-class citizens was a little tired-don't try and feed some real-world consequence into an episode whose message of social consciousness is predicated on something nobody actually believes. (Women, I think I speak for all men when I say: Queef and fart when you feel the need, and when it's appropriate.)

Though it was entertaining to see an episode of South Park focused on the ladies, we agree that the tone of Sharon Marsh's speech was weirdly didactic. We were left wondering if Trey and Matt actually had a point about how men think women's natural bodily functions are gross but delight in their own, or if it was just an excuse to do some queefing jokes. Then there's the possibility that running an episode with a "feminist" message, however absurd, was just another April Fools' joke on the fans.

Eat, Pray, Queef Review [IGN]
Eat, Pray, Queef [The A.V. Club]

Earlier: Queefs: What's The Etiquette For Dealing With Air Up There?
"How Can I Prevent Queefing During Sex?"
Instructional Video: Queefing
The Gong Show: Queefing Is A Talent

Marie Claire has an interesting interview up with several prominent female comedians—everyone from Margaret Cho to Kristen Schaal to Kathy Griffin—who discuss the challenges they face in terms of overcoming appearance-based scrutiny to get people to laugh. "I remember seeing beautiful girls do stand-up, and it was a disaster every time," Margaret Cho admits, "Not only were people not gonna listen to you because you're a woman, if you're good-looking, people really don't want to listen to you."

Yet many actresses have encountered the opposite end of the spectrum: "After Suddenly Susan, I went to every network and said, "What if you put four funny chicks together? Not newcomers, but four women who are proven in television: me, Jennifer Coolidge, Megan Mullally, Cheri Oteri, or Molly Shannon..." And the network people said, "What about Carmen Electra?" Griffin goes on to state that she's "constantly dieting, constantly working out, because unlike Will Ferrell, I'm going to take more hits if I don't at least have a normal figure. I was walking through Central Park yesterday without any makeup, and I come home and I'm on fucking TMZ for being old and ugly."

Joan Rivers, who is not shy about her love of plastic surgery, admits that many comedians start out without movie star looks but take the opportunity to change their appearance, once success kicks in: "Every comedian that does well becomes more attractive. Look at Roseanne, look at Lily, look at Goldie Hawn, whose face is totally different from where it started; Carol Burnett, Kathy Griffin. Nobody wants to be the ugly funny girl."

Yet are looks alone the only factor in deciding who will and won't be successful? Not necessarily. A woman who writes her own material has a better chance of shaping her career, says Kristen Schaal: "The ability to write is really one of the main things that has kept me grounded. If you can write, you have control over your career. If you don't, then you're just waiting for someone to give you a job." Women can also help each other: Tina Fey and Amy Poehler both apparently made a point to create better roles for women during their SNL days. (Though Janeane Garafolo takes a swipe at Casey Wilson by stating, "Unfortunately, what tends to get made are the Bride Wars movies. Even though there might be 50 scripts written by women, the one that's written about a wedding that you can put Kate Hudson in will get made." Ouch.)

When I was in college, I was one of only three women in a popular sketch comedy troupe. I also wrote a decent portion of our live skits, and tried to create roles that went beyond "mom," or "girlfriend." I can't lie and say I didn't find it easier to write for the boys, but I did make an effort to make sure that the women in the troupe had good parts and great lines; it's not a question of whether women can be funny (they are), it's a question of whether anyone will give them the opportunity.

"Look," says Carol Leifer, "it takes a lot of balls to be a comedian." Especially if you're not born with 'em.

We'll Show You Who's Funny [Marie Claire]

So, Germaine Greer writes an essay in the Guardian in which she apologizes for saying on TV that women aren't as funny as men. Then she says it some more, at great length. I won't bother dispatching her somewhat disjointed argument because Kate Harding, in Salon, does so very ably, pointing out that Greer dances around, but doesn't assert, the societal pressures that prevent women from honing those gifts generally considered comedic.

My primary reaction to these "debates" (and let it be said that the old saw prohibiting the analysis of comedy is, generally speaking, a good one) is...confusion. Because I find women really funny. Maybe I just have a taste for the "droll," (which Greer distinguishes from the actually funny) but I don't know who's supposed to be funnier than Barbara Pym or Laurie Colwin or, yes, Austen, while the allegedly riotous antics of The Ginger Man and Tom Robbins have always left me cold - and don't even get us started on Tina Fey or Carole Lombard. It's not so much that men are funnier; it's that the modern definition of "funny" seems to be a fundamentally masculine one - involving a lot of very aggressive antics - and by their own definition, sure, they're better at it, but mostly because almost no woman I know wants to carry on like a Hunter S. Thompson character. You'd think Germaine Greer would agree.

Women aren't funny, redux [Salon]

Beaten to the punchline [Guardian]

The current cast of SNL is filled with incredibly talented people, yet their talent is being squandered on vanity skits, cheap gay jokes, and the writers' tendency to draw up dark skits without any redeeming comedic elements. Never before has there been so much blood or general creepiness on the show: as a fan of dark humor, I can see where they are trying to go, but at times it feels like they are struggling to hard to be weird and kooky that they forget to, you know, be funny, too. So here are a few lessons from a master in offbeat, brilliant, kooky humor, Mr. Bruce McCulloch. Study up, SNL! And enjoy, doves. Every Sunday afternoon should have a laugh or two.

In Which Bruce Teaches Us About The Daves He Knows:





In Which Bruce Tells President Obama Which Type Of Dog To Get:





In Which Bruce Would Like To Know If We Can Dig It:





In Which Bruce Describes The Type Of Hangover That Many Of You May Have Today:

Perhaps SNL will give us something to post next week. Until then, feel free to post your own favorite comedy skits in the comments.

The movie has a March 2009 release date and this is all we know about it: After the women of a rural Welsh town are enslaved by lesbian vampires, the remaining townspeople leave two young men on the moors as a sacrifice. Oh yes, AND THE TITLE IS LESBIAN VAMPIRE KILLERS. Clip below.

[Ain't It Cool News]

Mister Rogers Puts In The Wrong Tape [Funny Or Die]

Best Actress (Drama)

• Angelina Jolie, Changeling: First of all, any movie that includes a hysterical woman screaming "I want my son back!" as the emotional climax of the trailer is treading heavily on "victim" territory. And, what do you know, Jolie's character is the biggest, most stereotypical victim on the list of female nominees.
• Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married: Our own Hortense thinks Hathaway's character is pretty victim-y, but we think she is mostly just a manipulative, angst-filled addict. What do you think?
• Meryl Streep, Doubt: Has this movie even come out yet? Streep's character doesn't seem like a victim at all from the trailers, most likely Streep plays a shrew in this film.
• Kristin Scott Thomas, I've Loved You So Long: What is this movie? Oh, it's French. Well, judging from the plot synopsis it doesn't look like Scott Thomas's character fits into any of our usual stereotypes. What do people who have seen the film think?
• Kate Winslet, Revolutionary Road: Again, has this movie come out yet? We're going to withhold judgment until we see it.

Best Actress (Comedy)

• Sally Hawkins, Happy-Go-Lucky: We are going to say there were none of the regular female stereotypes in this film. Hawkins's character was just too damn likable.
• Frances McDormand, Burn After Reading: Again, McDormand doesn't play any of our regular stereotypes in this funny film. We're liking how this list is shaping up!
• Meryl Streep, Mamma Mia!: We have only seen the musical (don't ask) and Streep's character definitely wasn't a hooker, victim or doormat on the stage, so we assume it is the same on film.
• Emma Thompson, Last Chance Harvey: This film hasn't come out yet — reserving judgment.
• Rebecca Hall, Vicky Cristina Barcelona: Hall's character wasn't any of our normal stereotypes. Hurray for women in comedies this year!

Supporting Actress
• Amy Adams, Doubt: In the film's trailer, Adams seems a little doormat-y to us.
• Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona: Hm, Cruz's character was a little shrewish at times, but we can't pin a particular stereotype down on her.
• Viola Davis, Doubt: Okay, people, we get it: we all have to see Doubt!
• Marisa Tomei, The Wrestler: Oh look, another film that has not been released yet. Tomei plays a stripper, which, obviously, sounds sort of hooker-y.
• Kate Winslet, The Reader: As we saw yesterday, Winslet's character doesn't fit into one of the typical stereotypes.

Best Actress (TV Drama)
• Sally Field, Brothers & Sisters: Anyone who is a fan of the show: please weigh in.
• Mariska Hargitay, Law & Order: SVU: Hargitay's character usually deals with hookers and victims; she doesn't play them.
• January Jones, Mad Men: This one's a bit tough: Jones's character is a little bit of a doormat and victim, but she has been showing more depth and strength as the series progresses.
• Anna Paquin, True Blood: No strong stereotypes really stick out to us in this character.
• Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer: Is there a category for "badass"?

Best Actress (TV Musical or Comedy)
• Christina Applegate, Samantha Who?: Maybe a bit shrew-y in the beginning, but the whole point of the show is that she is trying to correct her previous bad behavior, right?
• America Ferrera, Ugly Betty: Not really a victim or a doormat, Ferrera's character holds her ground when up against her co-workers.
• Tina Fey, 30 Rock: Let's see, a woman with a great job, a good sense of humor who doesn't get hung up on guys? Fey's character is probably the best female character nominated!
• Debra Messing, The Starter Wife: Messing's character doesn't follow a particular stereotype. Other than, rich, self-obsessed, LA woman.
• Mary-Louise Parker, Weeds: A victim of the man, maybe!

Earlier: 2009 Golden Globes: Good Year For Jokes, Midnight Tokers

*Inspired by Shirley MacLaine's assertion that the best parts for actresses fall into one of the above categories.

Time:

In Zack and Miri, Smith flounders for a while in situations and gags that are frankly sub-Smithian. It's as if Apatow has swiped his mojo and Smith can't get it back.

Salon:

And maybe that points to the chief problem with "Zack and Miri": The jokes are forced, almost mechanical, in their crudeness. They're so carefully placed that they feel a little precious rather than spontaneous, which ends up defying that impulsive, animal thing inside us, whatever it is, that gets us to respond to crude humor in the first place. That's not a problem specific to "Zack and Miri Make a Porno." More and more comedies are offering crude humor as an end in itself, instead of a means to an end. You can almost imagine the writers of these movies, in the midst of struggling to make a line work, just tossing in some graphic or scatological detail as a stopgap.

I don't think that's Smith's way of working, but as I watched "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," I found potty-mouth fatigue setting in pretty quickly.

The Los Angeles Times:

Smith will, unfortunately, be going to hell for the inclusion of one outlandishly grotesque sight gag, one the movie (any movie) would've been better off without. Then again, the filmmaker's entire career has mined the fun, the possibilities and the risks of going too far.

His is an arrested-adolescent sensibility, like that of many who have come along in his wake, notably Judd Apatow and his various guy-centric associates. But Smith can write and, despite his subject and the free-floating, genial skeeziness, "Zack and Miri" has a bright, chipper look to it, thanks to cinematographer Dave Klein, a frequent Smith colleague. Wintertime in Pittsburgh never looked so good.

USA Today:

Zack and Miri leaves us wondering whether it's supposed to be mostly a touching love story or a crude comic romp. Certainly there's room for sweetness amid bawdy humor, but the fusion should be somewhat original, or at least believable. In trying to meld the two, it doesn't succeed at either. It may be too sickly-sweet for audiences drawn to the idea of a ribald comedy and too explicit and foul-mouthed for those who prefer their love stories to be romantic.

Wired:

Zack and Miri is not a beautiful movie, smeared as it is with outdoor shots of icy streets and slush-covered suburbs.

But it is fun movie to watch (brace yourself for the gross-out money shot that had audience members giggling uncontrollably). More substantial than Smith's previous efforts, Zack and Miri sticks to a breezy pace, when things turn from goofy sleaze to slightly standard romance. Wisely, Smith keeps the heartwarming part short and sweet.

Washington Post:

And, even though they've seen this formulaic, crude comedy before, they'll still probably sit through it, just as millions of filmgoers will this weekend. Why? Because, as tasteless as it often is, it's still funny. Which is the only test that matters.

The New York Times:

So “Zack and Miri Make a Porno,” in spite of its sometimes tiresome, sometimes amusing lewdness, follows a gee-whiz romantic-comedy formula that would not be out of place on the Disney Channel. Two best friends who have always been in love with each other discover that ... they have always been in love with each other. Granted, this revelation occurs while they are having sex in front of a camera, but it is so sweet and predictable that these potentially tawdry circumstances hardly matter.

Slate:

The movie's central joke—that loving, intimate sex, of the kind Zack and Miri will eventually have on camera, makes for lousy pornography—is both clever and affecting. And the scene in which the two friends finally get it on is one of the few aesthetically successful moments, as Smith uses two different soundtracks to contrast the lovers' ecstasy with their onlookers' boredom. But Zack and Miri keeps throwing away the opportunity to be more than a string of undifferentiated puerile gags. The moment these characters start discussing feelings, their dialogue turns stiff: Would anyone from Zack and Miri's uninhibited Generation Y circle be caught dead using the boomer euphemism "making love"?

Entertainment Weekly:

The simplistic message, however, is one any church pastor might give: Sex isn’t sexy without love, commitment, and fidelity. The established auteur who made Clerks (un and deux), Mallrats, and Chasing Amy may now be a 38-year-old husband and father who heads a successful production company, but he's still got cheap advice for schlumpy twentysomething guys like Zack. (Zack's notion of getting lucky at the reunion, FYI, is receiving a quicky handjob from a bitter, married classmate who's enraged because her husband is flirting across the crowded room.) The advice: Find someone as luscious and, amazingly, available as Banks' Miri, and the electricity will magically switch on by itself. Well, duh. Of course Zack and Miri are meant for each other — why else cast that huggable Fozzie Bear Rogen or the delectable Banks, who, let's face it, looks like the Girl Least Likely to End Up a Loser? When Zack and Miri do finally get it on — an intimate scene that even bad cinematography can’t ruin — their lovemaking, though strategically covered up, is the one naked moment of emotion (and yes, eroticism) in this otherwise coarse movie's whole tired, simulated premise. And still, Smith throws in a limp third act before the dunderheads can admit their obvious lurrrve.

The A.V. Club:

A lot about Kevin Smith has rubbed people the wrong way over the years, from his self-aggrandizing efforts to build his "View Askewniverse" to his vision of a world where regardless of gender, race, religion, or social status, everyone's adept at raunchy sex talk. Mainly, Smith's greatest sin has been writing and directing a series of indifferently shot, choppily edited comedies in which all the dialogue—funny though it often is—sounds like one long monologue split between an assortment of flat, cartoony characters. Nevertheless, Smith is clearly a bright guy with a good sense of humor—even about his own failings—so it's nice to be able to break from the ritual of Smith-bashing for a change and say that his latest movie, Zack And Miri Make A Porno, is honestly enjoyable.

Rolling Stone:

If there is such a thing as a stroke flick for your funnybone, then Zack and Miri is it. Writer-director Kevin Smith is back on comedy terra firma, after Jersey Girl drowned in goo and Clerks II defined backsliding. For those who wonder what happened to the Smith of the first Clerks and Chasing Amy, here's your answer.

Chicago Sun-Times:

And of course, awwww, Zack and Miri admit they've been in love along, and achieve something you never see in a porn film, lovemaking with barely visible sex and very genuine romance. Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks make a lovable couple; she's pretty and goes one-for-one on the bleep language, and Rogen, how can I say this, is growing on me, the big lug.

Premiere:

But pornos are like sausages — if you want to keep enjoying them, you don't really want to see them put together. If you're a scrappy and somewhat clueless outsider, the harsh realities of the jizz biz will fwap you in the face pretty quickly — and we're not just talking about the romantic confusion of screwing your best friend for money on camera. So in the spirit of porno, sausages, and ruining your lunch, I couldn't resist the urge to dissect some pieces of Zack and Miri's Fantasy Porno World.

Ain't It Cool News:

It seems a bit played out to talk about how Smith seems to borrowing from the Apatow way of doing and casting films, since Apatow probably borrowed a thing or three from Smith's brand of humor and way of generating material. If anything, ZACK AND MIRI is a tribute to how much these actors appreciate the ground that Smith broke as a writer and maker of low-budget comedies, and I hope Smith continues making films this complete and deep feeling. In truth, only Kevin Smith could have made the most romantic film of his career and still fill it with some of the foulest and most over-sexed language and situations in movie history. It's actually the perfect blend of every tool that Smith has in his arsenal, used to tell a sweet love story set in the world of amateur porn. I think I'm in heaven.

'Zack And Miri Make A Porno' opens today in wide release.

The Hollywood Reporter:

Shannon and Blair are fun to watch, at least for a little while. After that, Kim's whining goes from amusing to annoying. By the second episode, about a third of which incongruously takes place in a gay bar, you're forced to concede the two characters, as written, have a combined repertoire of a single note.

Washington Post:

Molly Shannon and Selma Blair are two hoots worth a happy holler in NBC's "Kath & Kim," a cleverly funny sitcom debuting tonight after scoring a smash with a different cast in Australia. The show has been painlessly Americanized and might as well be an indigenous creation, armed as it is with wicked, wacky comment on the mores and morals of the mall culture

The New York Times:

The Australian version is broader, bolder and more callous, gleefully unabashed about sending up lower-class accents and suburban vulgarity; the NBC adaptation tiptoes a little too squeamishly through snobbery and bad taste. “Kath & Kim” should be funnier, and could yet be, but the pilot disappoints.

The Los Angeles Times:

If this seems like a lot of space to devote to wardrobe, it's only because everything just gets worse from here, and, frankly, it pains me to write about it. For one thing, the original Australian "Kath &Kim” was very funny, and it's always embarrassing when a U.S. version doesn't measure up. Though why anyone would think we could take on an Aussie comedy is beyond me. Can you imagine, say, "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" with Brad and George in the lead roles?

For reasons perhaps only Christopher Guest understands, it is very difficult for Americans to do the broad hyper-social satire that the Brits and Aussies specialize in. Perhaps it's because Americans are not comfortable with lead characters who are lovably absurd. We have a disturbing need for simple-mindedness to be recognized as wisdom, à la Forrest Gump.

Variety:

Snide but not smart, "Kath & Kim" will likely leave American audiences scratching their heads, wondering what Australians saw in the concept — or if something was seriously lost in translation. The producers have sought to give the project a Yank accent mostly by having their low-class protagonists reference National Enquirer-type gossip about U.S. stars, but the show irritates more than it amuses. Most fans of the better NBC sitcoms surrounding it that say "G'day" probably won't be able to say "G'bye" fast enough.

New York Magazine:

Copycatted from an Australian TV template, Kath & Kim wants to be a combo platter of Absolutely Fabulous and Gilmore Girls. The always limber, usually hilarious Molly Shannon plays Kath, a single mom who dresses funny. Pop-Tart Selma Blair plays Kim, her Doritos-eating princess of a daughter, who hardly dresses at all. Kath wants to remarry. Kim’s idea of a lasting relationship is Applebee’s; she’s moved back home after her young husband asked her if she might, personally, microwave something. Except for a visit to a gay bar for hip-hop, most of the action (tantrums, blubberings) occurs either in the house or a sandwich shop at the mall. This is because the unappetizing Kath & Kim is fixated in the oral stage.

'Kath & Kim' premieres tonight at 8:30 p.m. on NBC

Variety:

The American version of "Little Britain" shares several traits with Showtime's Tracey Ullman sketch comedy "State of the Union," yet virtually every comparison proves unflattering to the new HBO series. Whereas Ullman's comedy is clever, "Britain USA" is mostly just crude, reveling in mock condescension toward American stereotypes. Ullman plays multiple gender-swapping characters, but with more panache than the chameleon-like David Walliams and Matt Lucas. And Ullman's hit-miss ratio is simply higher, making the slog through "Britain's" gooey swamp to find laughs feel more arduous.

Oddly enough, the truncated preview HBO presented to TV critics a few months ago had me howling, which reminds us of the difference between selected clips and sitting through an entire half-hour of disjointed sketches. Moreover, the series is augmented by the strains of canned laughter that come across as forced each time one of the location bits falls flat. (Yes, "Benny Hill" did the same, but that was then, and this is now.)

The Hollywood Reporter:

It's not that Americans can't master the outlandish sketch comedy exemplified by "Little Britain USA." It's just that, from Monty Python to Borat to Eddie Izzard, the British invariably do it so much better.

The Los Angeles Times:

Where once its wildly diverse sketches were politically incorrect glimpses into different facets of British life — such as Vicky Pollard, the hilariously incoherent working-class teen, and Emily Howard, just an old-fashioned transvestite gal in denial — now they are firmly rooted in genital humor, an endless fascination with homosexuality and fat jokes, often in the same sketch. "Little Britain USA" adds some new American characters to the Lucas/Walliams repertoire, but the hard-R gross-out humor remains the same.

So if you are a fan of, say, "Little Britain" in Season 3, you will probably like "Little Britain USA." As for the uninitiated, well, I suppose it all comes down to a person's fondness for penis jokes. Because they are everywhere, those penis jokes: in the skits about the petulantly gay prime minister and his attempts to "seduce" the American president, or the one with a law enforcement officer whose erection grows ever larger as he shows off his gun collection, or the bikini-line-trimming friendship between steroid-maimed locker-room buddies.

USA Today:

Fans of the original (which runs on BBC America) will be thrilled to hear the pair brought some of their best creations with them: the "computer says no" receptionist; the cheerfully rude Fat Fighter; the fulminating female delinquent. But it's no mere copy. They've created new American characters as well, placed in peculiarly American settings.

Shaped like a BBC documentary and narrated by Tom Baker in suitably plumy, Masterpiece Theatre tones, Britain USA sends the duo on a rapid-fire tour of the states. Chances are you've braced yourself for a smug attack — superior Brits mocking idiot Yanks — but Lucas and Walliams have something much more embracing in mind. They mock everyone, from that English import receptionist ("the British pride themselves on being the rudest, most unhelpful people in the world") to guest star Rosie O'Donnell, a hilarious, good-sport victim of the Fat Fighter's attack.

'Little Britain USA' premieres on Sunday at 10:30 p.m. on HBO

You're on the road now doing stand-up, and your reality show is about to premiere, but you've done scripted shows in the past. I know you've discussed the lack of non-stereotypical roles for Asians in your act before, and I was wondering if it's gotten any better since you started out in show biz. There’s just nothing that’s out there. The only roles that are out there if you’re a woman of color are based on ethnicity. If a role is for Asian women in particular, it’s going to be for an acupuncturist. Of course, there are Asian acupuncturists in life that are real women, but it's still a stereotype. I feel bad for Asian actors who want to work, because there are only those stories out there for us. The real story behind the movie 21 is about Asian American kids, but they used white kids for those main roles and Asians in the supporting roles. I don’t know why. The problem isn’t even out-and-out stereotyping at this point, it’s non-inclusion. That’s the way racism presents itself nowadays, as if non-inclusion is better. I think it’s actually worse, because then you don’t see those people at all.

Speaking of inclusion, you seem really focused on being a good role model for your fans so that they don't feel alienated.
I always want people to feel beautiful. I try to be super positive about my body, and super positive about not saying, 'I feel fat and I feel ugly.' Of course I have moments of weakness, and sometimes I have interviews on those days. ! I don’t want be self-deprecating in the way that comes too naturally for women. I want to be a woman who is really proud of her physical being, I am proud to be forty, am proud to be in this body. People don't get to see a lot of real women on TV who haven’t had plastic surgery, who haven’t had botox, and I’m totally normal. In my new TV show, I try to be naked a lot because I think it’s important for viewers to see a real 40 woman looks like, but also because how things were for me the last time I had a show. When I first had a screen test [for her 90s sit com All-American Girl], I wore a midriff shirt and my stomach was showing, and one of the executives said, don't ever, ever do that again.

I also hear you're totally awesome about using your body for experiments on the show. I definitely read your blog about getting the G-shot. How was it?
I really was disappointed in the G-shot! I have some weird value judgment on how I reach orgasm and I always felt inadequate that I couldn’t have one through intercourse. Why isn’t it enough that I can orgasm? Why is it more valuable to orgasm a certain way? What a great gift! Unfortunately, the G-shot didn't allow me to come from sex. It made it not possible for me to have sex for many months. We’re all built differently and female sexuality is so unique, and the specialness of who we are, you can’t take that into account when you create a procedure like that, though I think that it does work. It actually reinforced my realization that I’m not going to come that way. I had this ex-lover who was like, 'I wish you could come from me and not your vibrator.' And I was like why? Are you emasculated by my vibrator? I’m really into sex toys and I can’t understand why people feel like it’s not a part of the sex process proper. It’s bullshit. I hate that.

Another big part of the show (besides getting a shot of collagen in your G-spot, obvs) are your parents, whom we love.
They really fit into the show and I thought it would be great to have them. It seemed like the right kind of thing to do and I was excited to have them on, along with my assorted friends. [I wanted to show everyone because] we are definitely a queer family — because that’s how queer family comes together, we create our own families.

Your puppies also have a big role on the show! And I read on your blog that you are a fan of the Daily Puppy, which we are also so obsessed with. Yes! I have three dogs, small, medium and large, all mixes. My medium is an Australian Shepherd Mix and my big one is a black German Shepherd mix. Sometimes I will wait until midnight and go on the Daily Puppy so that I can see the dogs change over to the next day's puppy, I'm so into it. , I’ll go deep inside it. I’ll get deep in there. I’ll be lost all day. It’s really funny sometimes. Once I remember I was going down the comments, and there was this guy on the boards called "puppy hater" and he kept going on about how the readers are fat old women who have nothing to do, and we’re so fat that we have nothing to love. And the readers just went fucking crazy on him!

People can be really mean on the internet! Even to puppies!If I had a daughter, I would have a real hard time letting her see any of the stuff online and the way they talk about women and women’s bodies. It’s so cruel and sickening.

Donut Pussy [Margaret Cho Official Website]

Earlier: This Is Not Chick Lit: A Q&A With Writer Janelle Brown