The overall impression I get from you guys is: why does Swift drop the irony/the sarcasm/the deadpan and get all serious towards the end?
I'm sure this will come up again. Why does the funny stop? In dark comedy and satire, there is a comment being made. It isn't like other forms of comedy where people laugh and laugh and have a good time and someone farts and laughs or trips and falls and hurts themselves and laughs and trips then farts and laughs. Satire and dark comedy is a social critique hidden beneath laughs. Sometimes the critique rears it's ugly serious head for a second. In Dr. Strangelove, it sneaks in. It's a (somewhat) serious moment when all of the planes are called off but one. In Little Murders, it gets serious and not so funny after the death of Patsy. I wonder if the same can be said about Dr. Strangelove and after the death of Ripper. Perhaps something to think about when we watch these films. What happens when a character dies?
Maybe Swift could only do so much with the dead baby thing. Recipes. Check. Skin used for gloves. Check. Hm. He could have gone on to coats or shoes, I suppose.
As the proposal progresses, the audience is desensitized to what is being said. So how shocking it would be to come in with truth of the matter (even if the truth comes off with a snippet of anti-Semitism with his line "Nor acting any longer like the Jews"). The tone shift is abrupt. I don't know what to do with the speaker. Do I trust him? He's persuasive from the get-go, even with the baby eating proposal, but what do I do when he gets 'real'? Again, we should discuss these moments when they come up.
4 comments:
See, I don't know if the funny has to end.
I think good satire, like the show Seinfeld (which I feel satirizes how neurotic, insensitive, and selfish modern folks can be) and even Dr. Strangelove, can make very serious points through humor alone.
Both examples make you laugh, but the more you watch (and the more closely you watch), the more you begin to laugh nervously (even self-consciously) and find a bit of the characters or situations in your own life, the more the point starts to sink in through humor alone.
The best satires, in my opinion, have no serious notes in the performance. The seriousness is brought to the situation by the audience realizing it on their own. I mean, John Stewart or Colbert don't drop the ironic persona every episode to give you the lowdown on what they really mean, all laughs aside.
Even when comedians do say, "but seriously folks," it's usually followed by another joke. Usually a more biting, revealing joke-- but still a joke.
i tend to feel very bored when the funny ends and the seriousness begins in comedy.
i remember watching a standup special of that funny mexican carlos mencia (who is neither funny, mexican, nor actually named "carlos mencia") a few years back on television. he oared through almost twenty minutes of making fun of nearly every race on the planet to end with a passionate, five-minute speech about the dangers of racism and racial stereotyping. finally, the martin luther king of our generation! from the claps and hoorahs, i deducted that the audience found his comedy UPROARIOUS and his wisdom INSPIRATIONAL and EMPOWERING. i was disgusted. he backpedaled his way through a half-hour of "[blacks/asians/puerto ricans] generally feast on [fried chicken/house pets/other puerto ricans]" to make a serious point on a significant topic of great importance in modern american society. couldnt he have constructed a better joke that would have both made the audience laugh and think about what the hell is going on with this ignorance shit?
aaron mentioned the nervous, self-conscious laugh in a previous post. forcing an audience to react in that way is far more effective at getting a point across than saying STOP THE LAUGHTER! LET'S LOOK WITHIN FOR TWO SECS. i mean, really. if a comedian is cracking a bunch of dumb jokes, why should i pause my enjoyment to listen to a little lecture on ethics or whatever point it is theyre trying to get across? it just seems like a cop-out and makes their jokes that much less funny. and might i even respect their opinion enough to take them seriously (stick to the funny! shut up and make me laugh again!)? on the other hand, if a comedian is dishing out well-constructed, witty, or, as aaron put it, "biting, revealing" jokes, im going to laugh more, admire their talent and wit, and think about what theyre saying underneath the humor.
Exactly! Cop-out. That's a good word.
I understand the underlying point Sarah Silverman is getting at when she says "I love chinks"/"Jews love money"/"Martin Loser King". It makes us think about why exactly we're laughing, it instigates thoughts about race and gender and religion.
By vocalizing and satirizing common fears, people become more accepting of them. Much more accepting then if a not-so-ironic Carlos Mencia or Dr. Swift awkwardly backpedals and starts spouting way too serious and way to boring ethics
Comedy is about making fun of everybody. The people in the audience have to understand going in that the comedian is going to make jokes. It isn't serious. When the comedian gets serious, I start to get nervous in that I am forced to reconsider the jokes. A joke is a joke. You get it or you don't. If you're offended, you're not getting the joke OR the joke is bad. Like I mentioned in class, I laugh at everything offensive in South Park, but if something offensive is said in Family Guy, I start writing the writers of the show an angry letter. Why? I think it's the jokes. I think it's the writing of the jokes. I think it's my sense of humor. What it comes down to is this: I may write an angry letter to the writers of the Family Guy (in my head), but I'll never actually do it. I just don't watch the show. Problem solved.
And is Seinfeld a satire? Interesting thought. I just thought it was a show about neurotic, insensitive, selfish people.
Post a Comment