Non-recycled thoughts about the Aristocrats
George Carlin was right when he said that it's best told as if the father (or whoever presents the act) describes the act as if it's completely normal, and therefore doesn't put a whole lot of emphasis on how perverted or whatever the act happens to be (that is, the character describing the act doesn't emphasize it; the teller of the joke basically has to)—though this doesn't really apply to tellings like Bob Saget's, or the South Park version, in which the family acts it out for the agent. In the tellings that basically consist of a litany of the various acts the family performs, it's hard to communicate that, because the father seems to be implying that the acts themselves are what will get the audience's attention and interest, and are therefore not everyday at all. So even if you tell it straightfacedly, the content gives the lie to the style.
This is why, in my opinion, tellings like Carlin's and Gilbert Gottfried's first were so good: they focus on what are, essentially, the fiddly bits, like Carlin's having the father say that he remembers to eat a lot of cabbage, and that he can tell if his aim's off by the sound it makes. It makes it seem as if he's really given a lot of thought to the act, and is under the impression that what distinguishes them isn't what they do but the fact that they do it so well.
Also, if there are lots of complicated couplings, it's harder to hold in your head who's doing what to whom, and how, so the cumulative effect is lessened—there's a point of diminishing returns for a mere litany. But you don't really have that problem if you're focused on particular aspects, like Gottfried's father with arms like a longshoreman's, where he says, you might be wondering where the blood came from—well think about what's going on here!
This belief might be exacerbated by the fact that many of the more litany-like tellings that were shown in the movie, like Emo Phillips', were rather short. But even the best of those weren't just a litany (say, Jason Alexander's).
Comments
on 2005-08-18 18:15:46.0, text commented:
it seemed to me that the most important thing was to be able to create an original image with the language. Just saying "fucking," or "sucking off" isn't going to do it. But describing an eye ball being popped out, and then "the father saw this as an opportunity" -- that does.
Some sort of comparison that isn't expected, a creative use of the language: that makes or breaks the joke. Howie Mandel sucked the most because he couldn't do that at all.