(a) Looking over my blog posts, I cannot say how much any changes in my writing have been reflected in them. I do not, in fact, feel that I have successfully changed a great deal about how I write. I have, however, become more aware of the problems inherent in my style. I am working to minimize comma use and shorten my sentences. As far as my writing about humor goes, I feel I have become far more concious of the structure and components of humor. I am more intelectually aware of what goes into a joke and of how the things poeple find funny differ. I will admit, going into this, I was skeptical about being instructed to analyze humor and disect it in a scholarly manner. However, as I have learned from this class, doing so is not only possible, it is interesting and reveals a great deal about the humorist and the audience. About my own writing I learned, perhaps most surprisingly was that my humor tended to be more in line with the women in the class rather than the men. Though I don't relish sex in the city, or other such "female" shows, I found that in terms of the non 'gendered' instances of humor that we encountered, my humro was more in line with the womens' than the mens'.
(b) One of my favorite readings from this semester was the Mark Twain story about the frog leaping. Not so much because I found it terribly funny, but because it was really illuminating in terms of seeing how a) subtle humor could be and B) how much the perception of what was funny has changed. I will always remember, and can't help but call to mind whenever I watch a comedy now, the theories of comedy. I am refering to incongruity, superiority, and release.
(c) Creating the blog was a really cool and interesting exercise. Remembering to post was not something that I was always good at, but even the fact that I had to do it on a regular basis was good for my organization. While I realize this wasn't the point, It was a cool fringe benefit. Writing also helped me keep my mind active and working and thinking about things from a critical standpoint. I found myself examining more deeply the readings and discussions we had in class. Reading other people's blogs taught me a lot about how other people though about humor. I also was exposed to a number of different and interesting styles of writing and voices. It got me thinking and reacting in my own blog posts, which often derived inspiration, directly or indirectly, from stuff I had read or we had discussed in class.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Quiz
Kung Fu Hustle
Kung-Fu Hustle is A martial Arts Comedy from China Which Stars and was directed by Stephen Chow. The film is an example of a particular genre of slapstick zany comedy (along the lines of blazing saddles) that is popular in China. I ended up watching the film on the recommendation of a friend of mine and decided it was worth writing about. The film’s story is not overly involved and is, in fact, simplistic and quite whimsical. It opens in Shanghai in the 1930s. The opening scene shows the clash between several gangs and the police. This rather grave event is depicted with humor and in and absurdist amounts of melodrama. In the film, the most feared of these gangs, despite their penchant for synchronized dance routines, is the Axe Gang. The Axe gang, lead by Brother Sum, terrorizes Shanghai and kills policemen without a thought. The Pig Sty Alley, A crowded tenement compound/slum, is largely unaffected by the Axe gang’s predations, likely due to the fact that there is nothing worth stealing in Pig Sty. A lecherous, but goofy and laughable, landlord and his domineering wife own the tenement.
Early in the film, two hapless rogues, the incompetent con-men Sing and Bone, come to town posing as members of the Axe Gang. They try to channel the Ax Gang’s fearsome reputation in order to extort things from the town. Their attempts fail when they are discovered as frauds and confronted by the members of the town who are all rather comically capable fighters (or so it would seem.) Bone and Sing, do accidentally draw the attention of real Ax Gang, when their firework inadvertently destroys one of the lieutenant gang member’s hat. A massive brawl ensues between three tradesmen (one is a Coolie, one a Tailor and the last is a baker named Donut.) in the town who are secret martial artists and the gangsters which ends in the, the gangsters are fleeing.
Sing and Bone are captured and nearly executed by the gang, who offer to instead grant him membership if they kill someone from the slums. Because she was rather stern in the past Sing decides to target the Landlady. His attempt to kill her with knives quite literally backfires when the knives rebound and strike him instead. During the scene that follows, he is subject to several snakebites and chased, road-runner style, down a stretch of road. While recuperating from his injuries in a water tower, Sing demonstrates a preternatural level of strength, bending the walls of the metal structure as he strikes out in pain.
Meanwhile, frustrated by the upsetting defeat the Ax Gang suffered, the debonair Brother Sum hires a duo of Martial Artists who play the harp with deadly skill. These two martial artist manage to kill the three martial artists in the Pig sty, but are then defeated by the landlord and his wife. It turns out they were also puissant practitioners of the supernatural martial arts.
In a final Gambit aimed at killing the Landlord and Landlady, Brother Sum gets Sing to free an incarcerated Martial Artist ominously named “The Beast.” Sing does so and the beast is convinced to fight two defenders of the Pig Sty. The battle doesn’t go overly well, but in the process Sing is swayed to the side of good, but incapacitated, shortly thereafter, by The Beast.
The films climax is an all out, over the top, martial arts bout between Sing, the Tenement Owners and The Beast. The whole movie, particularly the final scene, is an absurdist romp that draws inspiration in equal parts from the cinematic history of China, particularly of Kung fu movies, and from elements of American popular culture, specifically famous films such as “The Shining” and from classic Cartoons such as bugs bunny and the Road Runner.
At heart the film is a loving parody of all things and genres. It includes a numbe of references (most of which I didn't get) to older, kung fu movies and tropes. It was directed in a style that visually chronicles the evolution of Martial Arts films by drawing stylistic cues from various periods in that genre's history. In addition to odd, often incongruous characters, and absurd antics, the film draws from a lot of old slapstick traditions. Indeed a great deal of the pratfalls and physical comedy takes serious inspiration from some of Charlie Chaplin films. On the whole I really liked this film and enjoyied its strange comedic blend. Which is unusual because I don't normally like physical comedy.
Kung-Fu Hustle is A martial Arts Comedy from China Which Stars and was directed by Stephen Chow. The film is an example of a particular genre of slapstick zany comedy (along the lines of blazing saddles) that is popular in China. I ended up watching the film on the recommendation of a friend of mine and decided it was worth writing about. The film’s story is not overly involved and is, in fact, simplistic and quite whimsical. It opens in Shanghai in the 1930s. The opening scene shows the clash between several gangs and the police. This rather grave event is depicted with humor and in and absurdist amounts of melodrama. In the film, the most feared of these gangs, despite their penchant for synchronized dance routines, is the Axe Gang. The Axe gang, lead by Brother Sum, terrorizes Shanghai and kills policemen without a thought. The Pig Sty Alley, A crowded tenement compound/slum, is largely unaffected by the Axe gang’s predations, likely due to the fact that there is nothing worth stealing in Pig Sty. A lecherous, but goofy and laughable, landlord and his domineering wife own the tenement.
Early in the film, two hapless rogues, the incompetent con-men Sing and Bone, come to town posing as members of the Axe Gang. They try to channel the Ax Gang’s fearsome reputation in order to extort things from the town. Their attempts fail when they are discovered as frauds and confronted by the members of the town who are all rather comically capable fighters (or so it would seem.) Bone and Sing, do accidentally draw the attention of real Ax Gang, when their firework inadvertently destroys one of the lieutenant gang member’s hat. A massive brawl ensues between three tradesmen (one is a Coolie, one a Tailor and the last is a baker named Donut.) in the town who are secret martial artists and the gangsters which ends in the, the gangsters are fleeing.
Sing and Bone are captured and nearly executed by the gang, who offer to instead grant him membership if they kill someone from the slums. Because she was rather stern in the past Sing decides to target the Landlady. His attempt to kill her with knives quite literally backfires when the knives rebound and strike him instead. During the scene that follows, he is subject to several snakebites and chased, road-runner style, down a stretch of road. While recuperating from his injuries in a water tower, Sing demonstrates a preternatural level of strength, bending the walls of the metal structure as he strikes out in pain.
Meanwhile, frustrated by the upsetting defeat the Ax Gang suffered, the debonair Brother Sum hires a duo of Martial Artists who play the harp with deadly skill. These two martial artist manage to kill the three martial artists in the Pig sty, but are then defeated by the landlord and his wife. It turns out they were also puissant practitioners of the supernatural martial arts.
In a final Gambit aimed at killing the Landlord and Landlady, Brother Sum gets Sing to free an incarcerated Martial Artist ominously named “The Beast.” Sing does so and the beast is convinced to fight two defenders of the Pig Sty. The battle doesn’t go overly well, but in the process Sing is swayed to the side of good, but incapacitated, shortly thereafter, by The Beast.
The films climax is an all out, over the top, martial arts bout between Sing, the Tenement Owners and The Beast. The whole movie, particularly the final scene, is an absurdist romp that draws inspiration in equal parts from the cinematic history of China, particularly of Kung fu movies, and from elements of American popular culture, specifically famous films such as “The Shining” and from classic Cartoons such as bugs bunny and the Road Runner.
At heart the film is a loving parody of all things and genres. It includes a numbe of references (most of which I didn't get) to older, kung fu movies and tropes. It was directed in a style that visually chronicles the evolution of Martial Arts films by drawing stylistic cues from various periods in that genre's history. In addition to odd, often incongruous characters, and absurd antics, the film draws from a lot of old slapstick traditions. Indeed a great deal of the pratfalls and physical comedy takes serious inspiration from some of Charlie Chaplin films. On the whole I really liked this film and enjoyied its strange comedic blend. Which is unusual because I don't normally like physical comedy.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Gendered Humor
Does Gendered Humor exist?
Well, I don't know. If one were to ask me I would certainly agree that there is a social construct which would like us to conform to certain paradigms that relate to humor. But reading the article about how different parts of the brain were illuminated by different types of humor I found my credulity was somewhat strained. I don't know if I believe these results were a product of intrinsic genetic gender dispositions. Certainly I think that different parts of the brain may correlate to different types of humor, and I think people are conditioned, perhaps, according to gender, to consider certain things funny, from a gendered perspective, and other things not.
Shows like Sex and the city thrive on this notion that different genders nessecitate different types of humor. From a consumerist standpoint this is benificial to the entertainment industry who can now justify the production of even more goods which can be marketed, primarily to one of the groups, but also the other. Having Female only humor also ensures that anything will have a certain amount of viewership, no matter how poor the quality, because it has a gender correlated and this correlation alone is enough to entice people to watch it. TV stations like Oxygen and Lifetime do most of their buisness this way. And yet watching liftimeone would think the only things women were interested in were domestic abuse and sexual harrassment.
In short, I am reluctant to admit to any real, existing gendered humor. THough I do admit certain things are marketed as such.
Well, I don't know. If one were to ask me I would certainly agree that there is a social construct which would like us to conform to certain paradigms that relate to humor. But reading the article about how different parts of the brain were illuminated by different types of humor I found my credulity was somewhat strained. I don't know if I believe these results were a product of intrinsic genetic gender dispositions. Certainly I think that different parts of the brain may correlate to different types of humor, and I think people are conditioned, perhaps, according to gender, to consider certain things funny, from a gendered perspective, and other things not.
Shows like Sex and the city thrive on this notion that different genders nessecitate different types of humor. From a consumerist standpoint this is benificial to the entertainment industry who can now justify the production of even more goods which can be marketed, primarily to one of the groups, but also the other. Having Female only humor also ensures that anything will have a certain amount of viewership, no matter how poor the quality, because it has a gender correlated and this correlation alone is enough to entice people to watch it. TV stations like Oxygen and Lifetime do most of their buisness this way. And yet watching liftimeone would think the only things women were interested in were domestic abuse and sexual harrassment.
In short, I am reluctant to admit to any real, existing gendered humor. THough I do admit certain things are marketed as such.
Random Post
To be sure I was never wholly certain what to post here. I always found it much easier just to get to the point and be done with it than to actually type something, long , drawn out and meaningful. Knowing the origin of the blog as a sort of public diary (which, insofar as I understand what a diary is supposed to be, is a self defeating exercise) I have decided to use this as a forum to complain about the myriad of mundane problems and inconveniences that I find myself faced with. Hell, If it worked for seinfeld, then why not for me?
This morning I woke up, turned off my alarm, took a shower, and realized I didn't have class. I also realized that instead of setting my alarm for eight am as usual I had set it for six. I'm still not entirely sure how that happend. So I went back to sleep and ended up sleeping into the afternoon. Which is, of course, also irritating.
Earlier this week I had the extreme displeasure of loosing my dayplanner, which means I had to ask many of my professors when stuff they had told me was due, was due. This also proved irritating and rather embaressing. I do not like having to admit to being a complete and utter moron, indeed, I frequently delude myself into thinking that this is not the case. However, given the fact that I lost a book in my own bedroom apparently, I'm forced to admit there can be no other diagnosis.
I won't go on further because I have nothing else to say.
I did read these gems over the week, which I found funny:
"The Two lovers had never met. They were like to hummingbirds who had also never met."
"The duck floated over the water, exactly like a bowling ball wouldn't."
This morning I woke up, turned off my alarm, took a shower, and realized I didn't have class. I also realized that instead of setting my alarm for eight am as usual I had set it for six. I'm still not entirely sure how that happend. So I went back to sleep and ended up sleeping into the afternoon. Which is, of course, also irritating.
Earlier this week I had the extreme displeasure of loosing my dayplanner, which means I had to ask many of my professors when stuff they had told me was due, was due. This also proved irritating and rather embaressing. I do not like having to admit to being a complete and utter moron, indeed, I frequently delude myself into thinking that this is not the case. However, given the fact that I lost a book in my own bedroom apparently, I'm forced to admit there can be no other diagnosis.
I won't go on further because I have nothing else to say.
I did read these gems over the week, which I found funny:
"The Two lovers had never met. They were like to hummingbirds who had also never met."
"The duck floated over the water, exactly like a bowling ball wouldn't."
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Topic
My intial concept was to do something which explores the roots of and popularity of animated humor
Funny cartoons were once the schtick of political satirists in newspapers and of children's cartoons. Then,
for a time, cartoons began to stop reflecting, even simplistically and in a way that children could comprehend,
the political discourse of the time. IN the late 20th and 21st centuries we have seen an upsurge in animated humor.
The popularity of shows like Fat Albert and The simpsons gave rise to a generation of 'adult' cartoon humor shows, these include
southpark, Futurama, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, King of The Hill, etc. Some of these are politically and/or frequently
socially conscous, all, however, gear their humor towards adult an dmature audiences.
Thesis:I would endeavor to also, perhaps, assert that cartoons were useful for political commentary because people were disarmed by it and
because it allowed, even more than regular comedic media, for the use of and exploration of themes which might otherwise be viewed as inappropriate or too serious.
Cartoons are innately surreal, and therefore what they say and do is not viewed, perhaps, with as much Gravity as what a real person says.
Funny cartoons were once the schtick of political satirists in newspapers and of children's cartoons. Then,
for a time, cartoons began to stop reflecting, even simplistically and in a way that children could comprehend,
the political discourse of the time. IN the late 20th and 21st centuries we have seen an upsurge in animated humor.
The popularity of shows like Fat Albert and The simpsons gave rise to a generation of 'adult' cartoon humor shows, these include
southpark, Futurama, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, King of The Hill, etc. Some of these are politically and/or frequently
socially conscous, all, however, gear their humor towards adult an dmature audiences.
Thesis:I would endeavor to also, perhaps, assert that cartoons were useful for political commentary because people were disarmed by it and
because it allowed, even more than regular comedic media, for the use of and exploration of themes which might otherwise be viewed as inappropriate or too serious.
Cartoons are innately surreal, and therefore what they say and do is not viewed, perhaps, with as much Gravity as what a real person says.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Danger Profoundness Ahead
Ok I'll admit the tittle of this post is really really ambitious all things considered.
However, I have been giving some reather serious thought to what exactly it means to see and create "characters" in comedy and standup. In Oliver Double's Article, he draws parralels between acting and standup because they both share elements of emulation and immitation and, to some extend, actual adoptating of personas, to evoke a response in the audience. The article on the whole as quite intersting, though I was most intruiged by the section on Persona.
This appealed to me because, while general chracterization is obvious, persona's are not. As he mentions, character comedians do have obvious stage personas, but often times people adapt exagerated stage personas which are not so immediately reckognizable. I actually kind of wish he had gone more into this subject. It seems significant to me, the way comedians 'play themselves' on stage. I think this affectation presents a vital difference in various types of comedy. It has been my observation that among comedians who use their personality as the source of humor (Dane Cook, Dimitri martin being two rather different examples of the same thign) this sort of exageration is the source of their humor. No on is as idiotically manic as Dane Cook, nore do they froth at the mouth and salivate and spit and hop around as much when talking about burger king, and yet he is not portraying someone else in his comedy, he is portraying himself. Lewis Black, full of venom and vitriol, is another great example of this. His stage persona is loud and angry, and while he may in real life be clever and have a biting wit, I doubt verymuch he communicates solely in shouted diatribes. Perhaps this sort of self emulation, in addition to providing a more "funny" version of the self, serves a a sort of catharsis for the comedian as well. Just a Thought.
Mitch Hedberg, as I've mentioned about a hundred times, is my favorite comedian. I have not put a clip of him here though. I have also included a sketch by flight of the conchords, two of my favorite comedians who almost certainly are "characterized" versions of themselves. The act basically centers around them being the 4th most popular "folk parody band from New Zealand." They intersperse humerous songs with funny, if self effacing, banter. They have a show on HBO now. What is groundbreaking, in my mind, is the way they seemlessly combin the musical and comedy aspects of their act and how developed their musical sense is for, comedians anyway. Indeed their music has become more popular than the act itself.
Find two 2-3 minute clips below:
Enjoy1
However, I have been giving some reather serious thought to what exactly it means to see and create "characters" in comedy and standup. In Oliver Double's Article, he draws parralels between acting and standup because they both share elements of emulation and immitation and, to some extend, actual adoptating of personas, to evoke a response in the audience. The article on the whole as quite intersting, though I was most intruiged by the section on Persona.
This appealed to me because, while general chracterization is obvious, persona's are not. As he mentions, character comedians do have obvious stage personas, but often times people adapt exagerated stage personas which are not so immediately reckognizable. I actually kind of wish he had gone more into this subject. It seems significant to me, the way comedians 'play themselves' on stage. I think this affectation presents a vital difference in various types of comedy. It has been my observation that among comedians who use their personality as the source of humor (Dane Cook, Dimitri martin being two rather different examples of the same thign) this sort of exageration is the source of their humor. No on is as idiotically manic as Dane Cook, nore do they froth at the mouth and salivate and spit and hop around as much when talking about burger king, and yet he is not portraying someone else in his comedy, he is portraying himself. Lewis Black, full of venom and vitriol, is another great example of this. His stage persona is loud and angry, and while he may in real life be clever and have a biting wit, I doubt verymuch he communicates solely in shouted diatribes. Perhaps this sort of self emulation, in addition to providing a more "funny" version of the self, serves a a sort of catharsis for the comedian as well. Just a Thought.
Mitch Hedberg, as I've mentioned about a hundred times, is my favorite comedian. I have not put a clip of him here though. I have also included a sketch by flight of the conchords, two of my favorite comedians who almost certainly are "characterized" versions of themselves. The act basically centers around them being the 4th most popular "folk parody band from New Zealand." They intersperse humerous songs with funny, if self effacing, banter. They have a show on HBO now. What is groundbreaking, in my mind, is the way they seemlessly combin the musical and comedy aspects of their act and how developed their musical sense is for, comedians anyway. Indeed their music has become more popular than the act itself.
Find two 2-3 minute clips below:
Enjoy1
Monday, March 30, 2009
Problems!
Concepts are a hard thing to come by.
In the process of struggling to begin my funny story I have discovered that,
while our speaker may have been right that the best things are written in ten minutes,
he was rather vague on WHICH ten minutes, and completely failed to mention the hours of unproductive writing that preceed it.
In an effort to incite the muses to action, I'm trying to find some sources of inspiration. So far the Onion and Mcsweeny's have failed to give me any cool concepts. Any suggestions?
Concepts are a hard thing to come by.
In the process of struggling to begin my funny story I have discovered that,
while our speaker may have been right that the best things are written in ten minutes,
he was rather vague on WHICH ten minutes, and completely failed to mention the hours of unproductive writing that preceed it.
In an effort to incite the muses to action, I'm trying to find some sources of inspiration. So far the Onion and Mcsweeny's have failed to give me any cool concepts. Any suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)