Three Levels of Comedy – According to Eddie Izzard

I read a few interviews with Eddie Izzard upon studying him for my comedian presentation. In one interview there was a bit of him explaining the three levels if humor. Jerry's observations on the everyday life put him in the second level, but for explanations sake, “There’s sort of three levels of comedy that I notice. One is comedy in the room-which is ‘Where are you from, Sir? Where did you get that haircut?’… talking about stuff in the room. Everyone can see what’s going on and they react to it-it’s the first level.” Eddie uses this first level as the most basic humor for an audience with short attention spans, childlike low. He continues, “The second level is observational, which most people get into: ‘I was in the supermarket the other day,’ and people know about supermarkets, and they’re going, ‘Yeah, supermarket…’”. Eddie continues on a third level, but before I proceed, this second level has Jerry Seinfeld written all over it. His milk routine is exactly the humor Izzard is describing, and it is the same humor I find funniest. Elaborating on one of my blogs from earlier, this is the most shocking type of humor for me. People, like Jerry, make a living off of supermarket observations. If it’s so easy, why can’t I do it? But I will give Jerry some credit because he has a bunch of Porsches, and I do not. And finally, “The third level is when you get surreal, when you say, “ ‘I was on the moon, and a man came up with a gun, and he was chewing gum and playing piano at the same time.’ You really have to have them with you and wanting to buy into that world if they’re gunna come with it”. This third level is primarily where Eddie dabbles in his comedy. For instance, his centerpiece for his “Dress to Kill” tour evolved around the Inquisition of the Catholic Church and a long skit on different circumstances regarding the pope. This type of humor is just a little beyond observational where the audience has to pay a little closer attention.

Observational Humor

The humor, based on the premise of “it’s funny because it’s true,” makes observations about both minor and major occurrences in modern American culture. The great thing about it is that as time progress, the jokes change as well. Comedians will be making observational humor for decades to come. In the 70’s, Dave Letterman and Richard Pryor were all the fuss. Today, Chris Rock and Dane Cook, among others have made a living pointing out simple habits of mankind. There is a line for me where observational humor just seems ridiculous. On the lower end of the evolutional chain Mitch Hedberg has brought observational humor to its knees. He exposes the barest observations; it is remarkable he could make money with the jokes he used to tell. Granted they are funny (I get a club sandwich, and I’m not even a member), I find myself wondering why I am laughing at this sub-primal material.
Modern observational humor is essentially putting everyday conflicts or situations into a seemingly hilarious format. It seems almost too easy. “You go to the grocery store, and buy milk, or do you? Do I need milk?” As in Jerry Seinfeld’s stand-up clip the class saw, raises simple yet thought-provoking situations. Because the next time a member of the audience is at the grocery store they are sure to second guess their milk purchase.
This type of humor is based on the common man’s idiosyncrasies which we all adhere to. The great thing about observational humor is its ability to transcend socioeconomical boundaries, to some extent of course. For Seinfeld, this boundary seemed endless; anyone, anywhere could understand his simple grocery store humor. It is the Dave Attel-esque dog dick jokes that get a little weird. That type of extremist observational humor is on the outer boundaries as far as an audience goes. Those types of jokes might only adhere to a specific population, in Attel’s case, people who have seen a dog’s family jewels. So from Mitch to Jerry to Dave, observational humor will be spoken by stand-up comedians about a variety of topics, at a varying level of language ratings, for decades to come.

G, PG-13, and R (Pt. 2)

While stage presence exhibited a distinction between the comedians, they also stacked up in the same manner regarding topics of conversation. Since it is in another category than presentation style, I thought it would be appropriate to designate a blog to the theme. The styles of the performers also reflect their respected topics. The ratings are based mainly on the explicitness of the material, followed closely by the degree and language used throughout each performance. Essentially, I will promote myself to the head of the movie rating system for the purpose of this blog.
Mitch Hedberg adopted the mildest of attitudes. Compared to the other two entertainers, his stand-up was child play. More power to him because it did not take away anything from the comedy. He had a totally different approach than the other two’s observational humor. His absurd one-line jokes were sure to please, and he did so in a “G” manner. With not one curse word in mind, the two skits I especially recall are the “out-of-order” escalators and the Dufrane search party skits. It could be that I remember them because they were his longest jokes, usually have two to four kickers following the initial punch line. Set apart from the rest of comedians I have heard, his straightforward manner of speech could be comprehended by the simplest minds, thus a “G” rating is given to Mitch’s work.
In the middle of the film rating spectrum is once again, Wanda. On the surface, she used swear words sparingly, only for a more powerful affect. Dig a little deeper into her act and one might find her material to be extremely offensive. She was very blunt in her criticism of the male gender. Most of the clip we saw from Wanda Sykes: Tongue Untied dealt with male criticism. She also addressed political and race issues in the skit we saw in class. The last skit we got to see from her special had a racist tendency. We have learned throughout the semester that it is okay for people to poke fun at their own gender, race, religion, etc. So in conjuncture with that thought she was brutal in her “racist dolphin” act. Her PG-13 rating is based on this piece alone. This joke was also a little more insightful than that of Hedberg’s one-liners while addressing racism in a creative and funny manner.
Last, but not least, Dave Chappelle takes the cake as the most gruesome and gritty of the day’s acts. He used a more observational style than Mitch or Wanda and added his overly confident cursing vocabulary to suit. Most of his jokes revolved around episodes in his life or situations that can be illustrated by his audience. He consistently used curse words to further the muscle of his jokes with a few unnecessary jabs included. I noticed a few times he abused the usage of swear words, beating the dead horse in his stereotypes. For instance, he took the audience on a nostalgia trip with the bit on kid’s cartoons. Focusing on a childhood cartoon character, Oscar the Grouch, but added an adult spice to the scenario. In conclusion, once you see Dave Chappelle, you know you are not a kid anymore. Therefore, his “R” rating is appropriate for his intended audience.

Mild, Medium, and Hot (pt. 1)

The day we have all been waiting for, since the beginning of the semester, since the first day of class; stand-up comic presentations. Today was the first day of the fully fledged comedic insanity. The first lucky comedians were: Mitch Hedberg, Wanda Sykes, and Dave Chappelle. These are surely three well defined comedians with lots of material and analysis to take away from. The only comedian we had studied previously was Wanda Sykes and her material and insight was still amusing. The comedians had no real congruity with each other. The most obvious association would have to be that Dave and Wanda are both aggressive on stage. The reason for the title of this blog is that these three performers just so happen to fit right in line with three successive BBQ sauces. But instead of taste, this comparison concerns stage presences.
We studied stage presences a few weeks ago while examining the “Funny Ladies” video and the work paid off for this specific blog. On the Mild end, Mitch Hedberg is the bees’ knees when it comes to laid-back presence. Thomas made it evident that this “hippie” presence is merely but a front to his stage fright. He has battled his entire career with the shyness he exhibits on stage. Maybe my “mild” argument should be adjusted to “wussy” but for the sake of that not being a real BBQ flavor, I will stick with Mild. Although his jokes were funny, I could tell he did not look comfortable on stage. Hiding behind a mop of brown hair and large, aviator sunglasses, he even told a joke while timidly sitting on steps of the stage. Overall, it did not have a negative impression on the jokes he was telling, it all seemed part of his personality. It was the most unique of the three stage presences, but also the most boring, and for that, he receives the Mild taste.
Up next, we have the Medium sauce. Wanda Sykes was as funny as the first time I had heard her a few weeks ago. We got to see two skits from two different time periods and the stage presence was consistently strong. I was very comfortable regarding her stage presence and she seemed equally comfortable around her crowd. Unlike the other two, I am pretty sure her crowds were not nearly as large; nonetheless, she owned the stage. Her appearance was also coherent with her dominant stance against the stereotypical man.
Finally, the big tuna for the day, Dave Chappelle ate the Hot sauce like a champ. His boisterous manifestation on stage had me on my heels for his entire act. I was never quite sure when the next curse words would erode from his dominant style and loud mouth. Dave is the epitome of the Hot sauce on stage and I would be shocked to see another comedian with his pizzazz. He also had some distinct poses. During periods of close-up camera views, it was evident when he paused for laughter. Upon a punch line, he would pucker his lips and lean, with authority.

Harry Golden and His Theories on Gradual Integration

Another passage that caught my fancy in Black and White and other Political Stripes was the entry by Harry Golden. Similar to my previous entry’s writer, both Golden and Baker were writers for newspaper. Golden’s paper is not read as much as Golden’s New York Times, but the Carolina Israelite sure made me laugh. “The Vertical Negro Plan” gave a few concrete reasons on how to gradually assimilate African Americans. His writing in the 50’s must have been very controversial. One, because he wrote in the 50’s, and two, he wrote in the South.
He uses three plans in order to emancipate the slaves. The first is his Golden Vertical Negro Plan, which requires all schools to provide only desks in all public schools. The idea that there will be no desks means the Negro has not “set” himself anywhere, thus, he cannot be ridiculed. The second solution reminded me of A Modest Proposal’s. Although it has nothing to do with eating Irish babies, it does offer a solution dealing with babies. The theme behind My White Baby Plan is to offer white housekeeping women the opportunity to free up some time in their day. They would do this by hiring baby-sitters on a daily jobs, The only incongruence would be that the babysitters are black. This seems very logical because it would improve the lives of both black and white women, on the other hand, it would be pretty radical to let a stranger babysit your baby, especially a negro one. He offers, “a mutual exchange of references, then the people can sort of pool their children at a central point in each neighborhood, and every time a Negro wants to go to the movies all she need do is pick up a white child-and go” (437). This would solve the problem of Negros running away with white women’s babies. The final, and most formal plan, is the Golden “Out-of-Order” Plan. He states that Negros in North Carolina represents 39% of the population and he has already implemented the plan, and it works. If a department store or local park were to shut down the “white” water fountain, after a short period of time, the whites would assimilate to the “black” fountain. Genius! Desegregation!
I appreciated Golden’s writing because of its novel ideas. As we learned the first half of the semester, a novel or incongruent idea is funny to the audience. These theories are pretty novel to the young adult living in the 21st century, and I sure got a kick out of them.

Lyndon B. Johnson - God's Gift to the Oval Office

Out of all the passages I read in section four: Black and White and Other Politicians, Russell Baker’s was the most interesting for me. Unlike most of the book’s excerpts, Russell’s is told in the first person. Is satirical prose targeting the politics and life of Lyndon B Johnson was more than just another southern fictional humor excerpt. This narrative had meaning for the common reading, and it uniquely had some historical facts included.
Russell Baker wrote a column for the New York Times for thirty years. This specific entry of his book The Good Times, he describes Johnson’s personality as a cocky politician. Baker wrote in a time when newspaper and journalism were the main mediums for the public eye. In this time, if a politician running for president got a good vibe from the New York Times, he was nearly a shoe-in for the presidency. That’s how much weight Baker held as a columnist, and it is this power that makes Johnson look down right foolish.
Baker’s main theme focuses on Johnson’s admiration for John F. Kennedy. The president at the time, he is the apple of Johnson’s eye. Baker makes this connection seem almost like an obsession. Some other motifs that inspire Baker are Lyndon’s arrogance of Charles de Gaulle, to poverty in India, to his youthful career as a rural Texas schoolteacher. His criticism can not be appropriately understood without specific quotations. He ridicules Johnson in such a way that it is quite comical. Baker describes a day in the life, “You didn’t sleep through a time of glory and happiness as wonderful as this. You stayed up, enjoying it, talking about it. He talked about it one night with the handful of pool reporters assigned to his plane, telling them tat all the great leaders of the world were dead now, replaced by minor figures. He, Lyndon Johnson, was the last of the big men left on the international scene” (485). One of the writers challenges Johnson’s claims, and in response, Johnson denounces the man in question.
Johnson often sucks up to the reporters, calling them by their first names and befriending them only in hopes of a good review. It is this tactic that eventually bites him in the ass. After a long interview with Russell Baker, Johnson subtly asks his secretary, “‘Who is this I’m talking to?’”(484). The entry ends in quite a comedic fashion.
Because Russ criticizes Johnson’s policy in Vietnam (at the time of LBJ’s presidency) Johnson excludes him from a Presidential Scholars ceremony. It is just his luck that Baker still shows up, but Lyndon is unable to remember his name. During the course of five pages, they must have had a half dozen interactions, but in the end, “he still didn’t know me from Herb, Uncle Gene, or the Jolly Green Giant” (487).

Desperate Housewives

The Desperate Housewives is a TV drama shown on ABC. It is now in its fifth season, and has had tremendous success. This fictional atmosphere outlines the absurd happenings of Wisteria Lane. It follows the obscure lives of a group of women who adhere to their own crazy family lives. This seemingly perfect suburban neighborhood is filled with: domestic struggles, children, crime, and death while putting on a smile when they see their neighbors at any instance. The show has been awarded six Emmys and two Golden Globe Awards. The show continues to attack fictional problems in an American suburban setting; Erma Bombeck does not.
Erma writes about very real situations in the life of a female housewife. Similar to Desperate Housewives, she has had tremendous success. She was around for a period of 30 plus years with columns in female orientated magazines. 900 newspapers have Bombeck publishings. He points out persistent problems between the reality and the myths of being a mother. Unlike the hit TV show mentioned earlier, her problems are very real. She debunks the supermom ideal in her columns, and ousts the images that TV and media have potrayed them as. She began writing during the women’s movement of the 1960’s and continued to empower housewives through the 90’s. She writes for the stay at home mom, about the stay at home mom. The persona she adopts in her excerpt from At Wit’s End urges the women’s movement through a descriptive prose narrative. Some topics she covers includes: swim suit shape, raising children, the horror of snow days, and drinking. She explains typical situations of a housewife that I would never have thought otherwise. The fact that the “Act of God” known as a snow day is looked so down upon by housewives actually makes sense. Speaking for the opposing gender, mothers have to work those snow days instead of sending their children off to school like field mice on the prairre. Her persona does not fit the model of a suburban housewife because she regrets marriage and a few other nuances she tries to avoid. She says that children more often than not do no appreciate their hardworking mothers and she admits that no family is perfect.
The Desperate Housewives and Erma draw parallels about certain topics. For the most part, whatever these women do in their private lives, must stay private. In both societies, whether fictional or real, the women must protect what dignity they have. While the women of Desperate Housewives strive to remain perfect in everyday life, the real suburban housewife struggles to live everyday life. In conclusion, she does a great job outlining the problems of a housewives’ world.

Gossip

The theme of gossip transcends time. In class we have found a comedic angle to view gossip. The Silence Dogood Letters were merely gossip in print. In this class, I can now recall three instances of female authors using the theme of gossip. The first was from the Frances Whitcher selections at the beginning of the year. The women in this sewing society gather every so often to “sew,” when they actually just gossip. The sewing is so insignificant, but the women don’t think twice about just having a tea party instead, they insist on sewing. On top of all the absurdity, they ever have a president. My first instinct is that Ms. Whitcher is attacking the ideals of women in order to draw a laugh. I found the humor in this sewing society wasting yarn and gossiping for the time being. This episode concerning gossip was more appealing to me than the passage we read today from Edith Wharton. While Whitcher’s piece was more of a loose slapstick between fair ladies, “Xingu” associates with rich New York women who indirectly gossip about each other behind their backs. Mrs. Ballinger leads the herd to make fun of Mrs. Roby while she is the only one with opinions of her own. The rest of the crew say the least they can in order to satisfy their own personal intelligence. The women merely try to keep the conversation going by doing the minimal amount of work. Similar to the sewing society this is a lunch club. In conjecture with these settings, Eudora Welty writes in a hair salon. All three of these situations are perfect places for women to dabble in their gossip. In the Welty reading, the gossip spreads through the characters. It all starts when the hairdresser, Mrs. Fletcher tell Leota that your hair falls out when you become “p-r-e-g.” Leota, startled, gives her pregnant position away and Mrs. Fletcher instantly becomes interested. This piece reminds me about old high school drama. Scandals spread like wildfire through the halls, and the same goes for this situation.
Gossip is an interesting theme used by female comedians. We have yet to read a male piece regarding gossip (unless you count Ms. Dogood) and for that reason I think women use this humor to poke fun at their own social lives.

The Best of the Women - Wanda and Janeane

I would like to start this blog off with an under appreciated comedian that we have discussed in class. Out of all six or seven females we looked at this week, Wanda Sykes deserves a round of applause. She ousted her counterparts during Monday’s class. To that point in the class all the females we looked at were bad, to say the least. The crickets in the room quickly vanished when Wanda was turned on. The week’s focus was on style, timing, and appearance and Wanda had it all. She is a well-dressed black female, and she acted the part to a T. Her jokes were appropriate for her appearance and her language was synonymous with her act. I really enjoyed her feminist form contrasted with her aggressive male style. Her timing was almost too good. Joke and joke, she probably had twice as many punch lines as Margaret Cho earlier in class. She didn’t pause on stage and she knew her stuff. I congratulate Miss Sykes on her raw jokes in conjunction with well executed punch lines.
For me, the best comedian we saw on Wednesday was the young and beautiful Janene Garofalo. For the most part, her appearance matched her comedic style. Her tom-boy attire made her jokes seem more masculine to me. I hope I speak for the guys when I saw she was a man’s woman. Not in the attractive sexual way, more the association between the sexes. Her offensive aggressive jokes were much more appropriate coming from her than coming from Nora Lynch. Janene's overarching theme was a sort of resistance to society. We discussed this briefly in class, but I think that it the best way to say it. Most of her jokes marketed to men, but they also dealt with society at her time (mid 80’s?). The funniest joke I can remember was her sarcastic criticism of the all-versatile Steven Segal.
As for the best of the rest, Caroline Ray had some pretty smart jokes. Her skit started rough and once she got into her groove the punch lines kept on coming. I enjoyed her short satire of contraceptive devices (more specifically, the use of sponges).

Expecting the Unexpected

In class we focused on timing, style, and presentation. I wanted to take this blog to focus on presentation along with expectations. There is a general consensus of our class that the woman we watched defied their expectations. Margaret Cho was dressed in more casual female clothing during the skit we watched in “Funny Ladies.” She looked good sporting a dress, lipstick, and made-up hair. I have watched her stand-up in the past where she wears jeans, a plaid button-up shirt, and looks sort of trashy. So in turn, it is obvious she has changed her style for the better because the skit we watched in class was funnier than the comedy she performed previous. The delivery is affected by what people expect. The audience expectations are formed from two things. The first being their reputation. A comedian mostly gets their reputation from word of mouth, reviews, or legacy. Secondly, an audience gets a final expectation by their appearance that performance; if a female dresses like a male, I would general expect male-esque jokes. Besides Cho, I have never seen or heard the comedians we watched in class. With Cho, I expected her to have more elegant jokes by her elegant outlook, but on the contrary she crossed several gender boundaries. Similar to Cho, the second female act we watched in class also defied her expectations. This woman was a much more elegantly extreme case than the expectations of Cho. She was a very attractive female, dolled up hair, and a prom dress to boot. My expectations of her and her performance were very wrong. She acted almost immature on stage. Her only comedy was formed off of physical stunts that made her the butt of the joke. It was far from what I expected from a woman dressed as so.
There are people who dress and act the suit. For example, Larry “the cable guy” acts just like the audience might expect. With a southern draw, he talks about guns, women and rednecks. He appears trashy, and talks with a trashy tone. Personally, he is hilarious. He might not appeal to some women because his appearance makes him a “man’s man.” On the other hand, there are comedians who can appropriately cross that boundary. Eddie Izzard is one of those people. He is a transvestite. Without explanation, this gives most of the audience a common gender that we can relate to. If the joke appeals to men as a man, so be it. If the joke appeals to women as a female, everyone is happy.

Gender Rules

The Full Monty was a surprisingly funny British comedy set in the city Sheffield. Gaz is the main character who is on the verge of losing his only son. This is because Gaz cannot pay custody for his wife. One day he sees the women queuing up to see a performance by the Chippendales. These male strippers persuade him to try it out. He comes up with the idea of raising money by stripping. He riles up some of his buddies and they undertake the training they think a stripper must adhere to. The plot of this story is absolutely hilarious. I could easily write a few blogs concerning the comedy in this story, but I have chosen to pay tribute to the gender roles that this movie batters.
The Full Monty attacks the changing gender roles in today’s society. In the movie and in every day life, male stripping is a rarity. That doesn’t stop these unfit, out-of-shape men to pursue their dreams. It is interesting to see that the economy in which the movie is set is so deprived of work that men have to resort to an occupation such as stripping. It can be generally concluded that young boys and girls don’t usually have high aspirations of becoming a stripper when they are young. It is an occupation typically attracted to the under-educated and unemployed. But women still do it. In my mind, stripping is a degrading vocation for women. On the contrary, stripping in the movie empowers these men. It makes them seem superior and the fact that a woman will pay to see a man nude sanctions the degradation. In the end of the movie, all six men managed to take all of their clothes and become “Full Monty”. They regain masculinity and self-esteem that has been taken from them through the loss of their jobs.
Another gender misconception is that only women care about their appearance. It is evident by the magazine reflections scene that men worry about their body as well as women do. Dave has a strong complex about being chubby and worries that women, including his wife, do not want to see him. In hopes of enhancing his appearance, Horse buys some crooked tool to make his manhood bigger. All of the men in the film are very self-conscious of taking all their clothes off and scared of being a laughing stock. Thus male insecurity and vulnerability are well depicted throughout the film.

Would this be funny yesterday?

Humor entertains different types of people. Older people probably prefer intelligent comedy over beavis and butthead. Teenagers prefer Office Space over The Usual Suspects. Whenever I ask my dad what he thinks of those slapstick comedies, he scoffs at me. By the same token he could have a two hour conversation about a comedy he prefers. Generally, he prefers the intelligent comedy, because toilet humor is not funny to him. I asked him if he ever liked slapstick humor, perhaps, The Three Stooges? He laughed when he said, “That shit is hilarious.” Today, I wonder to myself what changed him. Obviously, he matured. What a loser I thought. I know in 30 years I am still going to laugh my head off at Billy Madison. This type of maturation made me think about whether comedy would be funny yesterday.
It was not until writing my mid-term papers did I really take this thought into consideration. Back to the previous claim. I want to preface myself by explaining the proposition. By yesterday, I mean decades ago. And by comedy, I meant things that make me laugh today. The Jim Gaffigans’, the Lewis Blacks’, and The Office are sure to tickle my fancy today. The question is, would my ancestors think Dane Cook’s piece on Church-goers be funny? So, I did some research, I called my grandma, round 78 years old this year, she has laughed more times than I could imagine. Influenced by my stats class, I know how to ask the right questions. I asked her what she thinks is funny. Obviously in her time she loved Charlie Chaplin, and recently she likes I Love Lucy. And yes, she said I Love Lucy is recent. So I then asked her what she thought of the show Seinfeld because it has been around for a decade or so. I knew she had seen the show because I sometimes watch it at her house. She said it is okay, the witty characters control the plot, if I could paraphrase. She still preferred I Love Lucy, over Seinfeld. I was appalled because I Love Lucy episodes really don’t have me rolling on the floor laughing, I personally think their characters are thin and the situational humor is corny. So it was decided, Grandparents and their future generations have different tastes in comedy. The question to why must be hidden in the depths of time.
This conclusion brings me to my next claim. Would modern humor be funny to generations of long ago? Would the colonists think Eddie Izzard is funny? Granted Izzard would have to be talking about pilgrims and the Mayflower and such, but the essence is the same. I can generally speak on behalf of my generation when I say Ann Stephen’s finest is not funny. The generic teenager would not be enthralled to go to a book club discussion on Ann Stephens. I am fairly confident the sheer shock of Izzard’s performance would have blown those Englishmen’s minds. The puritans would laugh their heads off if Izzard was doing a stand-up skit on the Separatists or the “City on a hill.” On the contrary, the comedic interests of the 1700’s would be different than ours today. So to say that they would laugh at todays stand-up would be a bold claim. I am interested to know what they would have said about Chris Rock or Eddie Murphy?

- - -Braces- - -

After watching the film Idiocracy, I would like to make a rather bold, irrational, claim. I want to forewarn the attentive blogger that this metaphor came to me in the middle of English 404 class on Wednesday. It surely has some kinks to be worked out, but on the surface most would approve that it is true. This is merely a thought of mine explained, and not everyone may understand/follow it.
Without further a due, I want to introduce my thesis. The American public and a teenager both experience the hardships of braces. I use the term braces in the most obvious sense of the word; the metal train tracks that coat the rims of one’s teeth, usually an adolescent or teenager. Furthermore, I will speak from my own experience with braces and the opinions on the American public are surely my own. My views will be portrayed in a third person narrative to keep it as simple as can be. But first, I want to give some background on the thought of braces. In each situation, the American public, and the teenager, I will compare their hardships accordingly. For the public, Barack Obama is the orthodontist of the teenager. Obama controls the public and an orthodontist controls his patient. It is up to the avid reader whether Obama is good to his public, but it can be concluded by my statement that every teenager hates his orthodontist.

What – Braces for the public surround the cutthroat economy. For the teenager, life just
plain sucks. As a kid, no one wants to get braces, you get laughed at, you are the butt of every other joke, and they hurt like hell. People that have already had them usually find it necessary to let you know, by smiling. The American public feels the same way. In these hard economic times it is easy to criticize America in their struggles. The optimists will look back to the better times and the pessimists will compare it to the Depression.

Why – There are many reasons why the economy is lagging, but this isn’t a business course and it can be generally concluded that “why” is now the most important comparison I want to convey. For the teenager and the public alike, braces act as a reminder to how great the future will be once the braces are off. After all, it can’t get much worse. The worst and most important times of a teenager’s life happen during “brace years.” The public knows that they want to go anywhere but here, trying not to admit that the country is virtually bankrupt. After viewing idiocracy, I never thought America would get to a point where it would Never get any better, for the characters in Idiocracy, all hope was lost.

When – Braces don’t just come at a bad time, the come at the worst time. Maybe not so much for America, but is there ever a good time for a recession? For kids, braces usually come on during the most strenuous, ugly times in a kids’ life. To make matters worse, you have to deal with acne and B.O. No one likes that. And no one likes the economy when it has acne and B.O. These economic times stink, and so do braces!

In conclusion, my metaphor of braces weighing down America and a teenager seems like a pretty loose interpretation of the situation. But honestly, braces sucks for teenagers, and the economy sucks even worse right now.

Idiocracy in Review

The film Idiocracy bring s a whole new meaning to the term satire. Personally, it was the best, or the worst, since Beavis and Butthead. I enjoyed its humor and social criticisms. One part of the movie reminded me a style that authors use. It pertains to the use of audience knowledge over character knowledge. It could often be related to the book, A Tale of Two Cities. You might have to read it over again, or just take my word for it. It creates a kind of humor when the characters in the novel are oblivious to things that the audience knows. This theme also acts in a scene during Idiocracy. I immediately thought of it when Luke Wilson is next to Maya Rudolph on the hospital beds prior to examination. There is a drawn out conversation about what her occupation is. It was funny for the audience because we know her as a first-rate red district worker when in the movie Luke Wilson thinks she is just another “artist.” It also questions Wilson’s intelligence when it is obvious Maya has no idea what she is talking about. This two minute scene exemplifies my audience over character knowledge. Although the intelligent comedy in this movie is few and far between it has a dark portrayal of the future of man. This social confusion is evident by who has more kids? Well, from the movie about four stupid kids are born for every one semi-intelligent kid. While this fiasco was going on, the intelligent people of the world are only concerned with themselves. That is because they were focusing their genius on how to cure male baldness.
The other subtle comedy I noticed was the transformation through time of the restaurant FuddRuckers. Before I even get started, that name had it coming for years. I don’t know why it took a movie like this to bring out its true colors. After the destruction of the secret mission, the sign arised for Fuddruckers. After a few scene changes and 500 years have passed. The name of the restaurant known as FuddRuckers, is titled ButtFu$%erks. That was the last time I found myself laughing at the movie Idiocracy.

Legacy – Three Stooges, W.C. Fields, and Shooter McGavin

A legacy can be defined in many different aspects. I want to focus on the term that relates to “how a person is remembered.” A legacy is the poopy trail of your life or the reputation we leave behind. Sometimes a legacy is something positive, for others it might be negative. Whether we like it or not, every one will remember you for different things. For example, my grandpa was known for his hard-work. The words “self-made” would also characterize his life. Legacies can be stains left by specific moments in life or wielded over years and years. Sometimes they are just little tidbits people remember or sometimes they get books written about them. That is the great thing about legacies; each person leaves behind a different memory for each person. My mom will remember her father for other things, and I will remember him for others. For that matter, The Three Stooges, W.C. Fields, and Shooter McGavin all left behind their own legacies.
The Stooges and W.C. Field’s have a similar legacy. To our generation, they were slapstick comics. They had a legacy of making funny black-and-white pictures. This style worked for decades. More specifically, the Stooges are one of the best comedic trios of all-time. Moe, Curly, and Larry used headlocks, props, and iconic themes to produce their legacy. These men made pie fights part of American culture. To this day people pie each other to mark a celebration, or just to arouse laughter. I guess their hard work and idiocracy paid off, now they have their own museum, The Stoogeum.
W.C. Fields is also known to our generation as a slapstick comedian. I found myself struggling to stay awake during his skit because it was so similar to that of the Three Stooges. Although it was only a third as funny to me, his legacy is much more prevalent to his generation. As the Stooges are known for their pie thrusts, it is Field’s career as a juggler that makes him unique. In the early 1900’s, Fields was billed as 'The Eccentric Juggler'. On stage he dressed as a tramp, with a fake beard and exaggerated eye make up, while his sidekick wore a tuxedo with tight satin pants (reminds me of someone else I know). Later on in his career he developed his act into a character. It was this character that we viewed in class. Some people might also know him as an alcoholic. He also despised children. His Corella Deville persona also relates to his legacy. It is said that he filled the pool in on his house. From whatever point of view you know/see W.C. Field’s he is known for different things by different people. This is the unique thing about a legacy, everyone has their own perception. To us, he is an innocent slapstick movie-maker, but at his death, certain people might have given him a negative reputation as an alcoholic or child hater. I guess it is ironic that he died of Cirrhosis of the liver.
How do these great comedians relate to Shooter McGavin’s legacy? You might be wondering why I used his on-screen name from the film, Happy Gilmore. After all, does anyone really know his actual name (Christopher McDonald)? I have, and will always know him as the villain persona he played in Happy Gilmore. He has had minor roles in dozens of movie thereafter, but his legacy will remain loyal to Shooter McGavin. This is a unique instance of a living legacy. People can live life with a nickname or alias, but there are not many people who are known as other people. Christopher McDonald is living proof of that legacy. In my mind he will always be known as a talented but incredibly arrogant jackass who delights in winning lots of money and praise. These characteristics will stain his character for as long as he lives. Whenever he appears in another film, I think of Shooter. I live you, my fellow bloggers, with this memory of Shooter.
Shooter: You're in big trouble pal. I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast.
Happy: You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?

It All Makes Sense - The Definition of Comedy

The group work we did in English 404 this Monday was interesting for me. For once in the semester it brought some of our previous work to the table. From watching Charlie Chaplin, reading Ann Stephens, and laughing with Eddie, I was truly starting to wonder if this laughter had a reason. I was starting to wonder if the class had a point. The discussion on Monday was a great way to tie it all together.
We looked at four different theories for the foundation of comedy. By using these men’s’ theories we could organize some of the pieces we have read/heard into their definitions. Whether the theories are good or bad can be directly related to the laughter that is provoked from the works that fall under them. I will go into my theory further, but it surely has some kinks to work out; after all, it’s just a work in regress.
I liked the first group’s dissection of the Woes of Comedy. Essentially, the theory was that comedy is a representation of life itself, based fully on faith not fact. The group argued that the human race will survive and is destined to carry on. To me, this sounds like some sort of philosophical breakdown, but it came full circle when they tied it to an example used in class. By asserting Charlie Chaplin’s movie into this category, the definition came to life. In the film he performs such a miniscule task in order to survive, as the world is figuratively breaking down around him, he manages to keep that mustache filled smile on his face and carry on. He is the comedic example of the survival of man. His association with his co-workers, his boss, technology, and the society around him really stress a funny, but honest, representation of life itself. For me, this type of comedy was funny and thus it supports the definition of the theory of comedy to the fullest.
My group was chosen to breakdown Henri Bergson’s account of humor. He has a few main points in which to define comedy. Laughter seems most useful in groups; it is the social prospect of group laughter towards those who are not behaving in a flexible way. This is an interesting point to bring up. I know when I am in a so-so mood, I have a hard time laughing out loud to The Office. But back home my friends and I would gather every Thursday night to a non-stop laugh-a-thon with every episode. I never quite realized why my computer and I couldn’t laugh like I could with my friends. It makes sense that things are funnier in groups. The second point can be broken down into two parts. A, mechanical inelasticity and B, unconscious comedy. The two are inevitably linked by their character. This persona or character cannot be inelastic and conscious, vice versa. So, I proceed to give an example. In the TV show The Office, both Dwight and Michael Scott exhibit this behavior. First and foremost, they are inelastic because their character never changes, and will never change, based on our laughter. In the show’s case, they will never change based on their co-workers. No matter how much crap they get, how many times they need to be straightened out, they will never change. To me, that is funny. I recommend this show to all because Michael is the boss you never want to have and Dwight is the employee no one wants to work with. Although these characters are clearly unconscious of their actions, I want to relate it to something we have read so far. I conclude the story of the Genuine Mustard Plug falls under this category. For instance, he is ignorant to buy that cruddy horse and after self-speculation, he realizes it too. Bergson says, his character is generally comedic in proportion to the ignorance of himself.
In no way do I think Bergson can be characterized into these two definitions. There is still many more terms he uses that are over my head which are probably extensions of his theory. I believe I captured the essence of his argument but the best way to understand him is to read it for yourself. But for confusions sake, you could probably take my word for it

The Usual Suspects - Aristotle, Kevin Spacey, and Paul Grawe

In chapter two of the Definition of Comedy,Grawe identifies comedy in two sorts as described by Aristotle. It is important for any author to compare his work with that of another in order to contrast views. Aristotle defines tragedy and by doing so he relates that to the misconception of comedy. Aristotle divides comedy as an imitation of an action as defined by tragedy and that serious comedy is trivial. This is an age-old definition of comedy in Aristotle’s day. This argument is confusing, but then again, it was written by Aristotle. Furthermore, Grawe attacks Aristotle asking what action typifies comedy? His trivial action characteristic, “routinely blinds itself to the most serious achievements of comedy in every age.” He puts the “action” stereotype in lay man’s terms by saying it is the unmasking of a hero/villain. This helps the reader comprehend Aristotle’s high-minded views. He gives a very easy example to simplify, “The best-known formula of this action is the one in which boy meets girl, seems to lose girl, and finally wins girl.” Grawe identifies other theories of comedic historians to criticize Aristotle. While Aristotle’s claims are hard to understand, I am sure in his time they were completely relevant.
Grawe begins his own interpretation of comedy by using Aristotle as a base. Like Aristotle, he breaks comedy up into two types. He brings up the topic of “frothy” comedy which I thoroughly enjoy. Just by the name “frothy,” I knew I was in for a treat. He says that this comedy has, “little to recommend it beyond the light.” Personally, this is my sort of comedy. The Dumb and Dumber movies of the world will never get old, and their quotes might even surpass the tunes of Aristotle. Although this is unlikely, I hope it will recount plenty of laughs for teenagers all over the world. He spends a little more time with the type known as serious comedy. His types are much easier to understand than Aristotle’s terms. Serious comedy uses intelligence to enhance the performance. This comedy takes a little more than a poop joke to keep its audience. It is said that the greatest comedians use this comedy to attract an audience. It can also give a comedian some sort of reputation. The best “serious” comedy I can think of his that of the movie, The Usual Suspects. It is one of my all-time favorite movies, not for its intense drama, but for the cynical laughs I found myself having. Kevin Spacey’s performance is anything but funny, but the last ten minutes of the movie kept a snarling grin on my face. If you have not seen the movie I would highly recommend it, but I would also disregard anything and everything I have reported. I like this serious comedy because it provokes the audience to think while also spilling some laughs. The important thing for the comedian, sort a say, is not to make the joke too advanced in that the joke or theme will go over their heads. The Usual Suspects does a great job in extracting thoughts from its audience, while also keeping them on the edge of their seats. Geez, this sounds like a review.

Over-The-Top Humor

Upon searching Google images for the phrase, “Over-the-top humor,” the first result was of a comic book. I began to wonder, are comic novels acceptable examples of over-the-top humor? I clicked on the picture and a giant comic book cover titled, “Satan’s Sodomy Baby” popped up. Yea, it applies.
Some of the humor we have been looking at lately can be thrown into the mosh pit known “Over-the-top.” First, A Modest Proposal grapples with an age old baby epidemic in 1700’s Ireland. I will not comment much further considering I already posed on the topic. It is important to recognize the similarities between comedies in this genre. A Modest Proposal takes an absolutely absurd topic of conversation, and turns it into a serious conversation using justifiable causes. Swift uses many examples and arguments to back up his proposition. His reasons include: one year of growth only needs a mother’s milk, produces 28 lbs of meat, the food is year-around fresh, and the child will yield a vast amount of food. He turns each of these reasons into a full paragraph with causes and effects. The reader might even be confused as to if the argument is fake, because of Swift’s powerful reasoning and seriousness. In the end, it is obvious that his proposal is quite, “over-the-top.”
The second example I found was from the Nasby selections. He makes some abrasive viewpoints but at the same time, “Negro Emigration” holds some weight for his proposal. Similar to A Modest Proposal, Nasby brings up a very controversial topic and tries to use justifiable means to prove his theory. The main argument I remember is that white people will eventually be outnumbered. On the surface it makes sense, but in the first line of his article he states that there are fifteen Negro people in his town. Then he proceeds to make the argument that blacks will outnumber whites due to their high-birth rate; now that seems a little absurd. And for that, Nasby uses an over-the-top approach to create humor in his writing.
This theme of “over-the-top,” can also be applied to today’s humor. It is a little different for us because it might become personal or inappropriate. Back in the time of the other two writings, I am sure their ideas were crossing the line and uncomfortable. But that is exactly what over-the-top humor is, uncomfortable. For instance, some of Ralphie May’s skits were just too much. His joke concerning the financial possibilities for the Catholic Church upon the death of the pope is a little extreme. I imagine the poor people of Ireland felt the same way (actually way worse) when they were being identified. To say May’s skit about the pope was true is completely ridiculous. It crosses the line between funny and inappropriate, but that is what he gets paid to do.
Nasby, Swift, and May all use this type of humor to walk a tightrope with audiences’ morals. The risk in this type of humor is huge, because if the audience thinks the comic/author went too far, then the comedy itself is offensive. As a kid in the 21st century, I found both Swift and Nasby’s moral dilemmas absolutely hilarious. Ralphie May’s, not so much. If people ever take May’s claims too far, at least people in the 24th century will probably find it funny.

They Colonists Needed Eddie Izzard

Eddie Wizzard
On wedenesday, February 4th, our 404 english class had two very different subjects on the agenda. The professor opened up with an hour of Eddie Izzard’s awesomely hilarious stand-up, proceeded by a twenty minute lecture on the Sot-Weed Factor. I will predominately discuss Eddie’s stand-up, mainly, because it was funny.
The class I singed up for involved American rhetoric and humor, so it makes sense that I was in for a few laughs. It now becomes evident to me that in order to find things “funny,” an audience needs to find out what is not funny. How would one go about defining funny if there was no Tale of Two Cities, or Johns Grisham novels? I am pretty positive that is what Jan is trying to make evident to us; without telling us the bland truth. I am sure in some day and age, at some ancient American moment, the Sot-Weed factor was laugh out loud funny to its audience. I bet they ate it up. One thing is for sure though, they still did not think Ann Stephens was funny, that’s a fact. Anyways, the Sot-Weed read more like a history of colonial America assignment than that of a history of comedy assignment. The colonists in the 1700’s were probably starved for laughs considering they were busy enslaving Africans, growing maize, and exporting tobacco for their greedy motherland out East. They needed criticisms like the Sot-Weed factor to keep them sane, and for that, I am sorry for them. They would have been in much higher spirits if they had real comedians back then. They needed men like Eddie Izzard.
Eddie is a unique man. First, he is a transvestite. Without explanation, this gives most of the audience a common commonality that we can relate to. So if a specific joke was not the cream of his crop, you could easily just take a moment to laugh at his outfit. And second, he is one of the select people on this planet that can have an audience peeing their pants by intermission. After viewing the rest of his routine, it was evident that he is the man. Or so I think. He adopts a persona that I quickly saw through. I did not think he was any less of a men, because he dressed like a women, and as a man, disguised as a women, he still made me laugh. During the bridge between our two viewings of Izzard I was in the clouds to the purpose of his tranvestism. Was it nature or nurture?
Recently, I have seen Eddie in two motion pictures. The first was a 90’s hit, Mystery Men. He plays a sidekick disco bad guy working to fight against the men of mystery. In that role, he also adopts more of a risqué male getup, but uses very much a manly American tone. Nonetheless, he was funny. The other movie he made a funny cameo in was Ocean’s 13. In that movie, he plays a very straight engineering handyman helping the thieves in their quest to crush Willy Bank’s empire. His witty hand gestures and articulate style was the source for that comedy. Which brings me to my final argument; why a transvestite?
The answers to my questions were finally solved when he broke it down for us. First, he does not have to dress up like a woman. As seen in some of his film productions, he can be just as funny without it. He describes himself as an “action transvestite.” He makes it clear that it is his prerogative to dress like a women, and just because you dress that way, it does not make you a homosexual. That was an interesting way to put it because I thought the two always went hand in hand. Eddie made it evident that he is a straight transvestite or a male lesbian. This statement brings me to my understanding to why he dresses like a female. As a male, disguised as a female, he can fully relate to both genders; moreover, he can offend no one. Jokes that would usually be offensive to women are taken with a grain assault because of his female characteristics. But jokes that would be taken harshly by men told by a women, are disregarded because he is, in spite of everything, a man.
In conclusion, I am sorry the ancient colonists did not have an Eddie Izzard, and I am thankful I have people like Eddie Izzard in my life. Because if I didn’t, I might think the Sot-Weed Factor was funny.

The Sewing Society Condemnation

The Sewing Society Condemnation

In all my admiration for women, all my respect, and all my gratitude, I apologize in advance for this post. It is nothing personal, but it is something that needs to be done. With that disclaimer, the three pieces we read for women’s day in English 404 class today brought crickets into the classroom. The first was “The Journal of Kemble Knight,” a boring piece about a female New Englander’s voyage from Boston to New Haven. I realize the piece is not entirely meant to provoke laughter from a college student in the 21^st century, but her attacks on the Puritan religion and certain social cliques were just dull. She pounced on the views of women at the time being instructed to be polite. Her character is rude and distasteful. The gloomy tone brought me, along with the rest of the class, to sleep. The second female article took on a male persona by a female author. I thought this one might have a chance, but in the end, Ann Stephen’s “Jonathon Slick,” crashed and burned in the cutthroat comedy scene of our 404 English class. I have little to nothing to say about this writing except that Stephens makes a poke at men when she says they do not understand what a corset is. Once again, this piece was not totally intended to make its readers laugh, and in the time it was written, it would have been suicide for women to do so. This brings me to the last text, Frances Whitcher’s selections. Her first piece, “Hezekiah Bedott”, adopts the gender role reversal along with Stephens. Her latter and better piece was, “Aunt Maguire Continues Her Account of the Sewing Society.” Her remarks actually brought a smile to my face. It was not because she tried to attack views or stereotypes of men, but she made me laugh at her perception of women in the 1700’s.

In “Aunt Maguire Continues Her Account of the Sewing Society,” I find myself confused as to who is attacking who? The attitude of the piece is quite peaceful and gracious. But this nineteenth century reflection on women’s pastimes makes me wonder why they had any free time at all. They spend their “sewing time” chatting and gossiping like today’s high school girls, “Ther tongues went a good deal faster ‘n ther fingers did, and the worst on ‘t was, they was all a runnin’ at once”(72). Whitcher then proceeds into their choice for a president. This whole passage is quite amusing to me. Their sewing is useless, the work sucks, they accomplish nothing, yet they have a president? Miss Gibson tends to talk down about her work, after she put so much time and effort in just so it can get ruined. In the end, they have to take apart all the hard work they have done, “All the work’in which they accomplish must be disguarded.” This part theme applies to women today. Unlike men, women are often more modest in their conquests. As Greg mentioned in class, if a wife and mother slaves all day getting her house ready for company, she will be the first to tell her company that the house never looks as it does. On the contrary, men who build their own cars, for example, need to flaunt their hardware to all the world. In conclusion, this text appeals to men because it pokes fun at women. These themes among women are generally different today. Most of the time women can make decisions in groups and they don’t do sewing circles either, which is good for them.

A Modest Pathos Proposal

A Modest Proposal starts off with some funny and possibly true claims of Ireland at the time. Not to say most of Swift’s claims are true, but they are attainable. His description of future generations of Irish kids is quite scary, “ as they grow up, either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country, to fight for the Pretender in Spain”(115). He uses this argument, along with a few others in his proposal for the solution of making a stronger nation. It is pathetic that Ireland would ever need some sort of revolution like this to become better, but then again, he gets the idea from the newfound America. When I read the proposal I thought it was totally ridiculous, but when he fathomed that America had already begun doing this, I took a step back. Did early Americans really? What? No way? So I read on, and his final pages were very serious in the parallels he makes with young America. He brings America into the equation quite subtly, “…for as to the males, my American acquaintance assured me from frequent experience…to fatten them would not answer the charge.” He uses this evidence to prove why we should only eat young children, because the meat of older kids is tough and lean. Besides the ridicule of his fellow Irishmen, the English are the main target in this piece. He is straightforward in his diagnosis of Ireland but the exploitation of England is quite satirical. Swift makes his point clear-cut, surpassing his moral issues and casting blame to anyone and everyone; not only the inability of the poor and helpless, but also the hypocrisy of the wealthy.

The one thing I had a hard time understanding today in class is the appeals; more specifically, the pathos. I remember in my English 190 class spending half the semester dealing with the three appeals, and even a class in high school worked on it. Anyways, the example used in class was of social welfare and that this is using pathos persuasion. I better understood the definition of pathos by defining the other two. By defining them, I could easily identify pathos by process of elimination. After I thought of a few examples or logos and ethos, I could better comprehend pathos. In a broad view, it attracts not only the emotions of an audience, but also the moral issues attached. After I conquered that concept, I could instantly think of several more instances of pathos. For example, cutting down a rainforest, expanding into Native American reservations and all environmental issues are all examples of pathos. Then it clicked, A modest Proposal is an outstanding example of pathos. On the contrary, it is everything pathos doesn't include. It is logically a great idea, but telling a 21st century adult that a country was slaughtering children to eat would make them nearly hurl. On that note, I have a pretty good idea of a pathos and logos argument.

Novels and Systems

In this week's first class lecture I noted a few connections between
the topics of systems and novel. The two attachments to systems are
that of incongruity and ambiguity. It is often thought that comedy is
produced by these two themes. More simply put, together, they create
the element of surprise, or novel. To further understand my ideas,
certain themes need to be defined. 'Wit's Weapons' notes that when
something is novel, it is often new or surprising. This idea helps
fulfill the quest for humor. Furthermore, concepts of novel are used
in systems. A system is a set of beliefs or ideas. An intended system
is different for every person. This is because we all have separate
beliefs, we were all raised differently, and most importantly, we all
think different things are funny.
An application to the original theory is that of a thriller novel or
movie. Although this theory is generally used to define a genre of
comedy, it can be concluded that the basic element of novel can be
described by other medias. In a bad scary movie, the audience is able
to predict the key action intended to surprise. This attempt at novel
fails, and thus the movie itself will most likely blunder. In a good
thriller, the director successfully surprises its audience. For
example, in the movie, "No Country for Old Men," the antagonist will
most likely attempt to surprise the protagonist. Excuse me if I forget
their names, but the idea still remains. The director is trying to
create the element of surprise. If he is successful in his vision, the
audience will most likely be stunned and surprised. A stunned and
surprised audience will yield better reviews, and thus a popular
movie. "No Country for Old Men" was successful in this conquest of
thrills and is generally considered a successful movie. Back to how
this relates to humor. The reader or viewer's prediction can be
further assessed in the early pages of 'Wit's Weapons'. It is said
that our prediction acts as the "expectation system" and the author's
depiction is the "real system." This system is intended to provoke the
laughs from an audience. If the expectation the reader has ends up
being true, then the author failed in his attempt at humor. The
transition between the two systems is where the humor lies.
The "real system" can be further broken down into incongruity and
ambiguity. I could further explore these differences, but essentially
they are both intended to create an element of surprise. For this
reason, I will streamline this narrative and focus on the half of
ambiguity.
One way an author can attract laughs is an attack on the systems. In
the excerpt from What's So Funny, humorists often reveal a specific
system to the reader. This system might spark the moral or obvious
systems of a reader. Then, the author suddenly shows the reader an
element from another system. This is where the ambiguity lies. The
authors' usage of this theory is what attracts laughter. It also
depends on many other variables: how well the reader knows the
systems, or if the system change is too ambiguous or not ambiguous
enough the reader will most likely become confused. Confusion is
usually not a recipe for laughter. It is important for the author to
find this area of ambiguity in order to entertain. There are many
other applications of how ambiguity can be used and even more
concerning incongruity that I intend to touch upon in my next
publication

Ketch Thunder

Ketch Thunder!

I wanted to continue my blog on Charlie Chaplin from last week. His character was too intriguing to fit into one blog. Last week I touched on the usage of notecards and music; most importantly, his mannerisms are what had me laughing. At the beginning of the movie he was on an assembly line and the line was moving at an easy pace, but upon increased speed, he would adjust his work speed. At first, he was calm and collected, but towards the end of the skit his feet were flying in all directions and he was making funny mistakes. It got to the point where he was getting in the way of his co-workers and eventually into the machine. The laughter ensued when he got eaten by that machine. He also took a break in the middle of shift to go to the bathroom and he was skipping on the way. His character was very childish, and in a grown up atmosphere, that was funny. It reminds me of the opening scene in Dumb and Dumber when Lloyd peeked out the limo’s window and had a strange conversation with the Australian women. After he got what he was there for he started mocking her even though he was oblivious. Charlie Chaplin has that oblivious attitude to him. He is in a world that he doesn’t belong in. This sort of behavior as a whole is funny to me.

In class we dissected the numerous slapstick humor readings and videos we had for homework. Although we spent majority of our time on the “Silence Dogood Letters,” I did not find them the least bit slapstick. The ideas of the papers were funny in themselves, but Franklin’s writings were more satirical than anything. Especially in the day in which he wrote those, I could not imagine the common man could read that and laugh. I consider myself fairly educated but those did not ring my bell for slapstick humor. Nonetheless, “John Parson’s Lizards” was the most appealing piece of writing to me. Initially, it was difficult to read, which created a major roadblock in my understanding of the material. But after I stepped back and began to read slower, I started to pick up on the simple aneurisms the author was using. Two things were very funny to me. On the surface, the retelling of a story to a friend is an age-old tradition. From the beginning of time, friends have been reminiscing about their previous night’s drinking endeavors or tall tales that accredit some sort of humor. This story is no different. Second, the imagery the author uses is astounding. The paragraph that describes the pastor handling the lizard in his clothes is beyond me. I had to stop and pause more often than not just to catch my breath. This story is simple dumb humor that I know as slapstick. Even though there was the minor obstacle of comprehension, I was able to break through it and laugh to a piece of writing for the first time. Another funny passage is when George asks him if he got caught and Parson’s responds, “Ketch Thunder! No Sir!” And that is how I well end today’s blog.