(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?
Monday, March 23, 2009
I've been thinking about a couple Ideas for short stories in the past couple of days.
I find the notion of trying to formulate "funny" ideas really daunting. I initially though about doing a short film, but decided I would be more comfortable, ultimately, writing something.
In lieu of actually plotting out of ideas I did some exploritory outlining and writing on the two topics.
I had a couple notions:
The first was about what would happen if people started forgetting how to read. It doesn't immediatly leap out as funny but I started writing some pieces and its has funny bits.
The other thing I was writing about was to do with a student. I found it somewhat trite.
I'm having trouble writing something the sole purpose of which is humor rather than which is incidentally humorous.
I find the notion of trying to formulate "funny" ideas really daunting. I initially though about doing a short film, but decided I would be more comfortable, ultimately, writing something.
In lieu of actually plotting out of ideas I did some exploritory outlining and writing on the two topics.
I had a couple notions:
The first was about what would happen if people started forgetting how to read. It doesn't immediatly leap out as funny but I started writing some pieces and its has funny bits.
The other thing I was writing about was to do with a student. I found it somewhat trite.
I'm having trouble writing something the sole purpose of which is humor rather than which is incidentally humorous.
Friday, March 20, 2009
On Sitcoms
So, I don't know about what sitcoms do to create humor.
I've never found them very funny. If anything I feel like Three and A Half Men and things of that ilk are grating and painful to watch-- like nails on a chalkboard, but for your eyes as well as your ears.
Anyway, there are definately some recurring motifs in sticom's I noticed.
1) The laugh track/audience, always laughs uproriously at the slightest provocation to inform the viewer that "YOUR SUPPOSED TO LAUGH NOW!"
2) People converse in witty and often stilted banter instead of normal conversation. This banter is often vaguley suggestive, is always very simple and accessible, even though characters who partake of it do not always understand the jokes.
3) For whatever reason the funny characters in the show tell jokes, but no one ever laughs at them except the audience. This is particularly true for the Chandler character on friends who is supposed to be the funny one yet his friends apparantly cannot even hear his sarcastic remarks and certainly dont laugh at him.
4) Sitcoms love pregnant pauses during which time characters look meaningfully or askance at eachother. This is another way they inform the viewer that something funny is happening.
I've never found them very funny. If anything I feel like Three and A Half Men and things of that ilk are grating and painful to watch-- like nails on a chalkboard, but for your eyes as well as your ears.
Anyway, there are definately some recurring motifs in sticom's I noticed.
1) The laugh track/audience, always laughs uproriously at the slightest provocation to inform the viewer that "YOUR SUPPOSED TO LAUGH NOW!"
2) People converse in witty and often stilted banter instead of normal conversation. This banter is often vaguley suggestive, is always very simple and accessible, even though characters who partake of it do not always understand the jokes.
3) For whatever reason the funny characters in the show tell jokes, but no one ever laughs at them except the audience. This is particularly true for the Chandler character on friends who is supposed to be the funny one yet his friends apparantly cannot even hear his sarcastic remarks and certainly dont laugh at him.
4) Sitcoms love pregnant pauses during which time characters look meaningfully or askance at eachother. This is another way they inform the viewer that something funny is happening.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Humor Idea
So I'm thinking I'll probably end up doing a short story of some kind.
The details of it escape me.
I had this idea for a parody of a movie advertisment where The captions that were Dramatically narrarated were not fitting with what was on the screen. For isntance the raspy anouncer voice might say "This summer, get ready for more excitment" while the screen might display something more mundane. Etc... It doesn't translate written.
Anyway. I'd either do that or some kind of short story.
Depending on my mood and whether I feel up to Final Cut Pro-ing,
which I hate doing because my computer loves to crash at critical moments while its running.
And now I digress.
And digress further.
Still digressing.
Best!
The details of it escape me.
I had this idea for a parody of a movie advertisment where The captions that were Dramatically narrarated were not fitting with what was on the screen. For isntance the raspy anouncer voice might say "This summer, get ready for more excitment" while the screen might display something more mundane. Etc... It doesn't translate written.
Anyway. I'd either do that or some kind of short story.
Depending on my mood and whether I feel up to Final Cut Pro-ing,
which I hate doing because my computer loves to crash at critical moments while its running.
And now I digress.
And digress further.
Still digressing.
Best!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Expanded Outline
Topic: A great deal of today's humorists employ a method of delivery that inoperates, to varrying degrees, an unmodulated (or aytpically modulated) tone of voice, a sort of nervous, deadpan, or otherwise naturalistic stage presence, and humor which delves more into absurdity of everyday life or skewed perceptions of mundane objects or events. It could be said that these trends were always extant in the realm of humor, and, to be sure, this is probably true. Therefore, while it may be unfair to say he was the progenitor of all these things, it is certainly true that he brought them all together in a winning combination that has been recycled and re-used, to varying degrees, by a number of the most famous american comedians from will ferrel to jon stewart. Mitch Hedberg might not be the father of 21st century comedy, but he was certainly its firstborn son. With mannerisms, a persona, and style all his own Mitch Hedberg, in his own way, revolutionized standup comedy. Praised, at his death in 2005, by entertainment weekly as "Comedy's Kurt Cobain," Mitch Hedberg was, if nothing else, a true innovator and a peerless comic.
What made him, and those who followed his examples, such savvy entertainers?
Yes the jokes were funny, yes his timing was good, but beyond these technical aspects there is another quality he displayed, quite plainly. That Quality is vulnerability. On stage he was as uncomfortable as you or I might be. His jokes, though light hearted, carried a tone of sadness. And of course there were the dark rumors about his heroine addiction. All these things lend a sense of vulnerability and humanity to him. They make him relatable and transform his joke from mere comedy to commentary o the human condition. This is not to say that he is wholly responsible for this human-comic, but it is distinct from previous trends of comics as mere joke tellers. It adds a compelling added dimension to a performance. IN my paper I will explore, and seek to prove, that certain types of comedy are appealing, not just for their jokes, but also for the insight into the human condition and catharsis that laughing at these follies offers. Finally, I wil seek to assert that, Mitch Hedberg’s work helped to establish this new comedic trend.
Similar Comedians
Dimitri Martin
Robin Williams (earlier)
Flight of the Conchords
Ricky Gervais
Previous trends, chatagorized by an emphasis on Jokes rather than on the Joke Teller.
Clownery- Charley Chaplin
Satire (Irony and Wry Commentary)- Jon Stewart, the onion
Slapstik/Gimmicky- Monty Python
What made him, and those who followed his examples, such savvy entertainers?
Yes the jokes were funny, yes his timing was good, but beyond these technical aspects there is another quality he displayed, quite plainly. That Quality is vulnerability. On stage he was as uncomfortable as you or I might be. His jokes, though light hearted, carried a tone of sadness. And of course there were the dark rumors about his heroine addiction. All these things lend a sense of vulnerability and humanity to him. They make him relatable and transform his joke from mere comedy to commentary o the human condition. This is not to say that he is wholly responsible for this human-comic, but it is distinct from previous trends of comics as mere joke tellers. It adds a compelling added dimension to a performance. IN my paper I will explore, and seek to prove, that certain types of comedy are appealing, not just for their jokes, but also for the insight into the human condition and catharsis that laughing at these follies offers. Finally, I wil seek to assert that, Mitch Hedberg’s work helped to establish this new comedic trend.
Similar Comedians
Dimitri Martin
Robin Williams (earlier)
Flight of the Conchords
Ricky Gervais
Previous trends, chatagorized by an emphasis on Jokes rather than on the Joke Teller.
Clownery- Charley Chaplin
Satire (Irony and Wry Commentary)- Jon Stewart, the onion
Slapstik/Gimmicky- Monty Python
Monday, March 2, 2009
Humorous? I hope So! That guy was totally right. It is utterly impossible to be funny on command.
I've been straining at it for the better part of the day. I formed a research team comprised of the best minds the world had to offer,
we logged a total of 100 man hours observing various instances of this so called 'humor.' We created all manner of data-studies, pie-charts, and ven diagrams. We compiled a cross referenced database of all our sources and empirical data, took every measure we could to achieve perfect accuracy. Meanwhile, a cohort of chemists, working in a multi-million dollar labratory complex, endeavored to distill the essence of humor from a pile of Tom Swift novels and a copy of 'Animal House.' The final members of our research initiative, expert biologists all, vivisected the five best jokes in the world, endeavoring to probe their anatomies and see what made them work. Unfortunately, none of the jokes survived this procedure. At the end of the expirament we were forced to admit defeat, both because it had become clear that humor was neither objectively quantifiable or possible to synthesize through sheer force of will, and because we had gone well over budget and now owed several significant debts to a cadre of shady Scientific Research Fellowships, who had sent men of questionable character and prodigious size to 'convince us' (through cunning argumentation and hitting us very hard) to pay back all our grant money.
I do hope you will, therefore, excuse the fact, that I have been unable to write for you a funny story. Clearly, such a thing is not only scientifically impossible, but potentially dangerous to attempt.
I've been straining at it for the better part of the day. I formed a research team comprised of the best minds the world had to offer,
we logged a total of 100 man hours observing various instances of this so called 'humor.' We created all manner of data-studies, pie-charts, and ven diagrams. We compiled a cross referenced database of all our sources and empirical data, took every measure we could to achieve perfect accuracy. Meanwhile, a cohort of chemists, working in a multi-million dollar labratory complex, endeavored to distill the essence of humor from a pile of Tom Swift novels and a copy of 'Animal House.' The final members of our research initiative, expert biologists all, vivisected the five best jokes in the world, endeavoring to probe their anatomies and see what made them work. Unfortunately, none of the jokes survived this procedure. At the end of the expirament we were forced to admit defeat, both because it had become clear that humor was neither objectively quantifiable or possible to synthesize through sheer force of will, and because we had gone well over budget and now owed several significant debts to a cadre of shady Scientific Research Fellowships, who had sent men of questionable character and prodigious size to 'convince us' (through cunning argumentation and hitting us very hard) to pay back all our grant money.
I do hope you will, therefore, excuse the fact, that I have been unable to write for you a funny story. Clearly, such a thing is not only scientifically impossible, but potentially dangerous to attempt.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Response to speaker
I really appreciated the speaker, finding him immensely funny and entertaining. I found his Ideas about humor to be both informative and insightful. In particular I enjoyed his discussion of how jokes, generally, were not something you could just force out. Rather, they are the product of a sort of natural thought flow about a subject matter. Though It was clear that he had a clear appreciation, and predilection for, political humor, this didn't stop me from taking away a great deal from his presentation. I even wrote a few things he said down, both because they were true and because they were hysterical. The articles he told us about were really funny pieces, and I was happy to see that he read McSweeney's. Now I feel less guilty about the library hours I have wasted on that site.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Somewhat belated Essay Idea
For this topic, pick a humorist who intrigues you, and develop a theory as to that humorist’s “brand of humor.” Take a closer look at his work, study her technique, read about his background or biography. What is the rhetoric of that humorist? What influenced her work? What, if any, are the messages or import of his humor? How has this person influenced comedy and humor in our culture?
Topic: A great deal of today's humorists employ a method of delivery that inoperates, to varrying degrees, an unmodulated (or aytpically modulated) tone of voice, a sort of nervous, deadpan, or otherwise naturalistic stage presence, and humor which delves more into absurdity of everyday life or skewed perceptions of mundane objects or events. It could be said that these trends were always extant in the realm of humor, and, to be sure, this is probably true. Therefore, while it may be unfair to say he was the progenitor of all these things, it is certainly true that he brought them all together in a winning combination that has been recycled and re-used, to varying degrees, by a number of the most famous american comedians from will ferrel to jon stewart. Mitch Hedberg might not be the father of 21st century comedy, but he was certainly its firstborn son. With mannerisms, a persona, and style all his own Mitch Hedberg, in his own way, revolutionized standup comedy. Praised, at his death in 2005, by entertainment weekly as "Comedy's Kurt Cobain," Mitch Hedberg was, if nothing else, a true innovator and a peerless comic. In my paper I hope to explore the elements of his style that made him so appealing, and also explore is comedic Legacy.
Topic: A great deal of today's humorists employ a method of delivery that inoperates, to varrying degrees, an unmodulated (or aytpically modulated) tone of voice, a sort of nervous, deadpan, or otherwise naturalistic stage presence, and humor which delves more into absurdity of everyday life or skewed perceptions of mundane objects or events. It could be said that these trends were always extant in the realm of humor, and, to be sure, this is probably true. Therefore, while it may be unfair to say he was the progenitor of all these things, it is certainly true that he brought them all together in a winning combination that has been recycled and re-used, to varying degrees, by a number of the most famous american comedians from will ferrel to jon stewart. Mitch Hedberg might not be the father of 21st century comedy, but he was certainly its firstborn son. With mannerisms, a persona, and style all his own Mitch Hedberg, in his own way, revolutionized standup comedy. Praised, at his death in 2005, by entertainment weekly as "Comedy's Kurt Cobain," Mitch Hedberg was, if nothing else, a true innovator and a peerless comic. In my paper I hope to explore the elements of his style that made him so appealing, and also explore is comedic Legacy.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Sketch Comedy is a type of comedy that is characterized by a series of sketches, or short scenes, of a comedic nature. This brand of comedy was once popular in vaudeville performances, and has now become a staple of late night television shows. SNL, Monty Python The Flying Circus, and Kids in the Hall are all examples of sketch comedy. Such shows string together a large number of such short scenes to form a complete program. Improvisational comedy, which is comedy that is imporvized on stage, also makes use of impormptu sketches and scenes of a comedic nature. Examples of this Include The Upright Citizen's Brigade (a New York Based Improv group which I like to go see sometimes at the UCB theater in NYC) and The Second City.
An Example of Sketch Comedy Follows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH7n_t48k3w
An Example of Sketch Comedy Follows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH7n_t48k3w
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Sitting Down to write this is something that I have, admittedly, been kind of dreading for the bulk of the week. I've never really been a fan of Seinfeld-ian humor. Largely, I think, because neither his delivery, nor the subjects he explores are particularly stimulating or provocative. I mean, granted, Seinfeld was a Network TV show, and so was constrained, with regards to the scope of its focus, to all but the least sensitive of subjects. I think that discomfort can be a valuable part of humor. When a comedian ventures into territory that makes you squirm a bit, one cannot help but laugh, even if it only is nervous laughter. I'm not entirely sure this release theory thing is nessecarily essentail however. The two comedians we saw in class last tuesday, for instance, explored pretty safe topics (Drive-thrus , and all kinds of stuff), yet provoked laughter. Why? Because they delivered their jokes in a way that was stimulating, interesting, and novel. You felt, in both cases, like you were watching a performance, like you were seeing something out of the ordinary, and you were entertained by it. Seinfeld by contrast just seems like a guy complaining... a lot.
So yeah, thats my two cents on the subject.
I showed some of my friends the Wicker Man Clip that we watched last week. It was well received. I'm pretty certain Nick Cage is the best comedic actor of this or any generation. It seems hard to imagine some of these lines could be delivered with a straight face. I'd like to see a movie featuring him and Samuel Jackson. That would be hysterical.
So yeah, thats my two cents on the subject.
I showed some of my friends the Wicker Man Clip that we watched last week. It was well received. I'm pretty certain Nick Cage is the best comedic actor of this or any generation. It seems hard to imagine some of these lines could be delivered with a straight face. I'd like to see a movie featuring him and Samuel Jackson. That would be hysterical.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Prop 8: The Musical
This, relatively short, video, is quite obviously a response to california's recent legislative action vis-a -vis Gay Marriage.
Its pretty clear this is intended ot be more than plainly humorous, though it certainly is funny, rather, it seems to be a send up of the notions which underpin (at least in the m i nds of the videomaker) the mentality of those who oppose them. By making people laugh at a set of ideas, one can make an idea seem laughable. In the language of the article, this seems to be an attempt to transport a serious topic into a joking context. To my mind, however, this is an attempt to use humor as a weapon, to make people take Something less seriously by making them laugh at it. Tina Fay's Sarah Palin sketches represent a similar use of humoras a tool to discredit someone. The Video follows:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
Its pretty clear this is intended ot be more than plainly humorous, though it certainly is funny, rather, it seems to be a send up of the notions which underpin (at least in the m i nds of the videomaker) the mentality of those who oppose them. By making people laugh at a set of ideas, one can make an idea seem laughable. In the language of the article, this seems to be an attempt to transport a serious topic into a joking context. To my mind, however, this is an attempt to use humor as a weapon, to make people take Something less seriously by making them laugh at it. Tina Fay's Sarah Palin sketches represent a similar use of humoras a tool to discredit someone. The Video follows:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Funny stuff... I promise
Max Werner
January 28, 2009
Humor
The Boy Raised By Pythons and Black Adders
(or My Sense of Humor)
I grew up, for the earliest years of my life, in Berlin, which is perhaps the reason that my earliest exposure to English Language humor was to comedy of the British persuasion. At age five I cut my comedic teeth on Monty Pythons: The Holy Grail, to this day I still laugh with the same uproarious glee at that film (perhaps more so now because I definitely get more of the humor, being as I am now, marginally better informed than I was then.) When I discovered The Flying Circus I devoured that to with equal voracity. Blackadder, a British comedy series featuring Rowan Atkinson as the cynical, sarcastic and deeply self-interested titular character (Edmond Blackadder), also made a big impact me. The ridiculous metaphors and similes that Blackadder’s every day language was peppered with enthralled me. When he would describe something as “About as useful as a barbershop at the foot of a guillotine,” or laments that the course of his life is “Strewn with cowpats from the devil’s own satanic herd.” I would think, ‘Wow, that’s clever!” This is, perhaps, the origin of my peculiar taste in humor, which tends to favor witty observations about mundane things or clever turns of phase over topical humor and political satire.
That said, I am as much of a Daily Show enthusiast as the next man, I can appreciate the odd bit of topical humor, or cliched’s standup routine about how inept the Bush administration is. But it doesn’t really draw me in as much as the one-liners, quips, impeccable and yet totally unpredictable and novel delivery/timing, and generally bizarre world view of comedians such as Mitch Hedberg and Dimitri Martin. Hedberg is a particular favorite of mine. Famous for his funny, if somewhat odd, one-liners and observations Mitch Hedberg had a totally unusual voice and mode of delivery. The cadence of his speech was irregular, he would pause oddly in sentences and his voice would increase in speed and intensity and then slow rapidly in a way which was both unpredictable, and utterly rhythmic. His routine’s influence, to a greater or lesser extent, can be felt in the acts of a great many ‘dead pan’ comedians today. People from Will Farrell, Alec Baldwin on 30 Rock, to Jon Heder of Napoleon Dynamite fame, all employ a presence and delivery which bears traces of Hedberg’s distinct style. Hedberg’s stage presence was also quite unique his famous for his long hair which he polled down around his face, presumably to hide himself, his slouched, closed off stance, his nervous fidgeting and the self-concious nervous he spoke in, rather than impeding him, became iconic parts of his persona.. Hedberg is, himself, a paradox, a living example of the incongruity theory of comedy. He is a clearly stage-shy, uncomfortable man (as demonstrated, among other things, by his frequent practice of periodically facing away from the audience while still delivering his jokes.) doing standup comedy in a way his fear is clearly visible and yet he is somehow, still, hysterical. Dimitri Martin, to a lesser extent, exemplify this comic uniqueness and daring willingness to admit ones flaws and to be one’s self on stage, while still being utterly hysterical and clever.
I suppose ultimately, the reason my comedic palate evolved to favor the styling of People like Dimitri Martin and Mitch Heberg, over more topical humorists like Jon Stewart, goes back to my days watching British Television Comedies, where it was, more than anything else, the wit and absurdity, not the ‘pop-cultural’ relevance, of a joke that was prized. Had I grown up on Seinfeld (famous for his ‘real world’ observations) rather than Monty Python (whose comedy has always been more otherworldly) I might have, as the vast majority of my friends do, grown up favoring topical humor. Just as I am frequently told that the humorists I admire most (who tend, admittedly, to adhere to the incongruity theory of humor pretty strictly, it would seem) are “weird” I feel that the jokes made on the daily show are, though funny, ultimately not as timeless or enduring as the more abstract jokes which I prefer. Sure, its funny when a clever comedian makes a snarky remark about the president, but in twenty years that topic will be tired and that joke utterly unappreciated, but the flying circuses absolute lunatic absurdity, will almost never fail to rouse at the very least, a giggle, from even the most taciturn of viewers.
January 28, 2009
Humor
The Boy Raised By Pythons and Black Adders
(or My Sense of Humor)
I grew up, for the earliest years of my life, in Berlin, which is perhaps the reason that my earliest exposure to English Language humor was to comedy of the British persuasion. At age five I cut my comedic teeth on Monty Pythons: The Holy Grail, to this day I still laugh with the same uproarious glee at that film (perhaps more so now because I definitely get more of the humor, being as I am now, marginally better informed than I was then.) When I discovered The Flying Circus I devoured that to with equal voracity. Blackadder, a British comedy series featuring Rowan Atkinson as the cynical, sarcastic and deeply self-interested titular character (Edmond Blackadder), also made a big impact me. The ridiculous metaphors and similes that Blackadder’s every day language was peppered with enthralled me. When he would describe something as “About as useful as a barbershop at the foot of a guillotine,” or laments that the course of his life is “Strewn with cowpats from the devil’s own satanic herd.” I would think, ‘Wow, that’s clever!” This is, perhaps, the origin of my peculiar taste in humor, which tends to favor witty observations about mundane things or clever turns of phase over topical humor and political satire.
That said, I am as much of a Daily Show enthusiast as the next man, I can appreciate the odd bit of topical humor, or cliched’s standup routine about how inept the Bush administration is. But it doesn’t really draw me in as much as the one-liners, quips, impeccable and yet totally unpredictable and novel delivery/timing, and generally bizarre world view of comedians such as Mitch Hedberg and Dimitri Martin. Hedberg is a particular favorite of mine. Famous for his funny, if somewhat odd, one-liners and observations Mitch Hedberg had a totally unusual voice and mode of delivery. The cadence of his speech was irregular, he would pause oddly in sentences and his voice would increase in speed and intensity and then slow rapidly in a way which was both unpredictable, and utterly rhythmic. His routine’s influence, to a greater or lesser extent, can be felt in the acts of a great many ‘dead pan’ comedians today. People from Will Farrell, Alec Baldwin on 30 Rock, to Jon Heder of Napoleon Dynamite fame, all employ a presence and delivery which bears traces of Hedberg’s distinct style. Hedberg’s stage presence was also quite unique his famous for his long hair which he polled down around his face, presumably to hide himself, his slouched, closed off stance, his nervous fidgeting and the self-concious nervous he spoke in, rather than impeding him, became iconic parts of his persona.. Hedberg is, himself, a paradox, a living example of the incongruity theory of comedy. He is a clearly stage-shy, uncomfortable man (as demonstrated, among other things, by his frequent practice of periodically facing away from the audience while still delivering his jokes.) doing standup comedy in a way his fear is clearly visible and yet he is somehow, still, hysterical. Dimitri Martin, to a lesser extent, exemplify this comic uniqueness and daring willingness to admit ones flaws and to be one’s self on stage, while still being utterly hysterical and clever.
I suppose ultimately, the reason my comedic palate evolved to favor the styling of People like Dimitri Martin and Mitch Heberg, over more topical humorists like Jon Stewart, goes back to my days watching British Television Comedies, where it was, more than anything else, the wit and absurdity, not the ‘pop-cultural’ relevance, of a joke that was prized. Had I grown up on Seinfeld (famous for his ‘real world’ observations) rather than Monty Python (whose comedy has always been more otherworldly) I might have, as the vast majority of my friends do, grown up favoring topical humor. Just as I am frequently told that the humorists I admire most (who tend, admittedly, to adhere to the incongruity theory of humor pretty strictly, it would seem) are “weird” I feel that the jokes made on the daily show are, though funny, ultimately not as timeless or enduring as the more abstract jokes which I prefer. Sure, its funny when a clever comedian makes a snarky remark about the president, but in twenty years that topic will be tired and that joke utterly unappreciated, but the flying circuses absolute lunatic absurdity, will almost never fail to rouse at the very least, a giggle, from even the most taciturn of viewers.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Dancing, Gravity, and other things that can ruin an evening
1) The Joke: From Class
Question: Whats worse than biting in to an apple and finding a worm.
Answer: The Holocaust.
Certainly, there was a fair bit of laughter at this joke, and that might be because of Release Theory (raises a decidedly uncomfortable and catastrophic event). However, I personally find myself to be, generally speaking, to buy into the whole incongruity theory bit. And certainly, there are few things less congruous than the grave misfortune of biting into an apple to discover it is the home of a worm, and the Holocaust. Setting these two things side by side serves to starkly portray gargantuan the difference in scale between the two negative occurrences in a way that one can not help to laugh about. I guess it is ultimately something of a mixture between release and Incongruity.
This weekend, in accordance with assignment given to me by this class, I sought to observe and record an event that was humorous. Knowing full well the gravity and seriousness of the subject matter, I sought to empirically asses the relative 'funniness' of each event I witnessed according to a strict eight category rubric. Comparing the results of my data collection, I would then select the anecdote which received the best score on my rubric and then report it as diligently and objectively as possible... realizing this was ridiculous, I instead decided just to type up an account of something that happened Saturday night.
T'was the 25th of January and I was tending bar at a fraternity the name of which does not bear mentioning. Invigorated as they were with the evenings festivities, a quartet of girls decided to dance on the bar. This bar was not, as you can imagine a long, stately, or even particularly clean one. Rather it was short (only about five feet long) and only about a foot and a half wide. The bar had been carved from some dark wood and was, at one point in its life, a regal bit of furnishing, but now those halcyon days had passed and it was dingy, pock marked, and vaguely sticky. In short, the bar is not an ideal surface for dancing. However, this was not an issue for these four, and they climbed up upon the surface, amidst cheers and a few concerned looks from some of the brothers, and proceeded to dance. They might have been stopped, had one of them, not thirty seconds after climbing up, danced wholly off the bar and come crashing down on a folding chair situated to the right of the bar (intended to block people from walking behind the counter). Thankfully, only the chair (and very likely the girl's ego) were harmed, however, there was a chorus of laughter and even the odd photograph. To me, this can only be a manifestation of Superiority Theory, of people laughing because, no matter how many mistakes or slip ups they had doubtlessly made in the course of the day, at least they had not fallen on their posteriors in front of a crowd of revelers whose focus had been centered on them.
Things I find Funny:
1) Mitch Hedberg
2) Douglas Adams
3) Really really Bad Movies
4) Lists
5) Jon Stewart and Mr. Steve Colbert.
Question: Whats worse than biting in to an apple and finding a worm.
Answer: The Holocaust.
Certainly, there was a fair bit of laughter at this joke, and that might be because of Release Theory (raises a decidedly uncomfortable and catastrophic event). However, I personally find myself to be, generally speaking, to buy into the whole incongruity theory bit. And certainly, there are few things less congruous than the grave misfortune of biting into an apple to discover it is the home of a worm, and the Holocaust. Setting these two things side by side serves to starkly portray gargantuan the difference in scale between the two negative occurrences in a way that one can not help to laugh about. I guess it is ultimately something of a mixture between release and Incongruity.
This weekend, in accordance with assignment given to me by this class, I sought to observe and record an event that was humorous. Knowing full well the gravity and seriousness of the subject matter, I sought to empirically asses the relative 'funniness' of each event I witnessed according to a strict eight category rubric. Comparing the results of my data collection, I would then select the anecdote which received the best score on my rubric and then report it as diligently and objectively as possible... realizing this was ridiculous, I instead decided just to type up an account of something that happened Saturday night.
T'was the 25th of January and I was tending bar at a fraternity the name of which does not bear mentioning. Invigorated as they were with the evenings festivities, a quartet of girls decided to dance on the bar. This bar was not, as you can imagine a long, stately, or even particularly clean one. Rather it was short (only about five feet long) and only about a foot and a half wide. The bar had been carved from some dark wood and was, at one point in its life, a regal bit of furnishing, but now those halcyon days had passed and it was dingy, pock marked, and vaguely sticky. In short, the bar is not an ideal surface for dancing. However, this was not an issue for these four, and they climbed up upon the surface, amidst cheers and a few concerned looks from some of the brothers, and proceeded to dance. They might have been stopped, had one of them, not thirty seconds after climbing up, danced wholly off the bar and come crashing down on a folding chair situated to the right of the bar (intended to block people from walking behind the counter). Thankfully, only the chair (and very likely the girl's ego) were harmed, however, there was a chorus of laughter and even the odd photograph. To me, this can only be a manifestation of Superiority Theory, of people laughing because, no matter how many mistakes or slip ups they had doubtlessly made in the course of the day, at least they had not fallen on their posteriors in front of a crowd of revelers whose focus had been centered on them.
Things I find Funny:
1) Mitch Hedberg
2) Douglas Adams
3) Really really Bad Movies
4) Lists
5) Jon Stewart and Mr. Steve Colbert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)