- - -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.