Review of Personal Research Project

The project was launched after observing that there is a growing tendency among young adults to use comedy routines as a source of information alongside or sometimes even to the detriment of conventional media sources.

The first part of the research focused on reviewing theories about humour, how it is constructed and why we laugh. Going a step further, the research document suggested there might be similarities between the role played by the performer/writer of comedic content in the present with that of Karl Kraus` early 20th century Vienna (loss of confidence in traditional media outlets due to their evident coalescing with those in power and corporate interests).

Considering this context, the topic I wanted to look at in the practice-led segment of the project was that of audience response to comedic content, focusing specifically on how performance affects the overall perception of the message. The theoretical underpinning for this inquiry was Hodgart`s concept of the aesthetic value found within comedic performance, the element which separates them from a common moralising rhetoric an angry man`s rant or a political/social mobilising discourse.

As a brief overview, the 6 artefacts looked at aspects of nonverbal and paraverbal communication, stage persona and context.

Artefact 1 gauged the overall preferences of an audience for different ways to tackle similar issues, centring around nationalism and patriotism, by four comedians. Respondents watched a video collage and answered a questionnaire. They were asked to identify what the main argument to support the comedian`s stance was, how he went about presenting it in his performance (comparison, hyperbole, impersonation, etc), the reaction he was trying to get from his crowd and how he presented himself on stage as a character.

The one comedian that confused the audience and whose performance was not enjoyed was Bill Hicks aggressive bashing of fake patriotism. This connects to the audience`s perception of the context and ambience a comedy show should have, partly, as artefact 6 will show.

Artefact 2 worked in three stages, from text to audio to video, gradually uncovering the performer behind the message. Having chosen an out of the ordinary stage appearance like Eddie Izzard (unusual at least for non-British and Western viewers) what immediately cropped up was that appearance can have two important effects upon the audience`s understanding of the material:

a) it can hinder it, because it acts as a distraction

b) it can change the point of reference, from text and paraverbal signs, to visual cues.

Artefact 3 was born after seeing how visuals can `steal the show` and absorb the audience. A short comedy sketch was written and recorded with participants taking part in a focus group. Important thing to note here, at least in terms of young adults, longer audio segments unaccompanied by visuals can easily become confusing. Some basic understanding was achieved but it was brought about by several hints and the overall message of the piece wasn`t evident to everyone.

On a side note, this artefact reminded me that there are quite a few comedians who use a flat delivery and are very successful. It seems, you don`t have to use all the tricks of drama and oratory to grab the attention of your public, and your stage persona doesn`t have to conform to those standards either (this links to artefact 5).

Artefact 4 made audiences think of paraverbal and nonverbal signs working together. Two subtitles portraying different scenarios were attached to a foreign film and respondents were asked to identify the original scenario. Those who realised the need to rely on more than visuals managed to give the right answers. Also, it turned out how even when it can be misleading, visual information is still heavily used to establish context and characters.

Artefact 5 turned the attention on the dangers of downplaying the importance of context for the sake of comedic appeal, especially in parodies (the specific case of Hitler and Nazi Germany). The context into which the public find themselves, it was argued during the course of an interview, is extremely important. It relates not only to pressure from our peers, but also to the note in which we choose to receive messages (comic, moblising, moralising, etc).

Artefact 6 finally tested these assumptions by making respondents fill out a questionnaire while listening to recorded audio samples from varying contexts. Their perception of the message was heavily influenced by ambient.

Artefact 6 Evaluation

For this artefact, two monologues were compiled from stand-up routine excerpts. A few lines from Nazi speeches were slipped into the text. A first group of respondents read the monologues highlighting any lines they found out of place within the general tone and context. A second group read the monologues while listening to different audio sample (these were to provide the context and style in which the monologues were presented). The aim was to explore the ways in which a certain context shapes our reception of the comedic content and delivery. They were meant to test some of the presuppositions voiced within the previous interview.    

Group 1 focused on the text and they identified some of the rogue excerpts. They also found some comedy excerpts to be overly aggressive for their declared purpose.

One of audio samples presented to Group 2 was an interview recorded in a studio and had no background noise. The slightly inciting tone of the speaker in the studio interview made respondents associate the monologues with an agenda, unlike those reading it while listening to other audio samples (lecturer, comedian). 

The impact of a single persistent background noise (a saw) audible in the second interview shaped all responses:

1) It created an uneasy atmosphere, made the speaker look nervous, as if saying something subversive.     

2) Seemed like criticism within the rules of the system, maybe a union leader`s speech (although the tone wasn`t passionate enough at times)

3)The subject of an exhibition depicting a community. Emphasis not on the monologues (which sound like unfounded opinions) but on his dissatisfaction with his place

Identifying potentially violent discourses (especially given the use of aggressiveness on stage as part of an act) depends on the speaker`s involvement and the agreed context into which the content is delivered. 

Artefact 5 & 6 - a new perspective

For the last two artefacts, I decided to go slightly beyond the field of comedy into oratory in general, and political speeches in particular. It occurred to me that there is something peculiar about the way parodies of one of the most reviled characters in history (Adolf Hitler) are made. 

There seems to be little need for artistic license in parodying Hitler. And there is almost a feeling that those portraying the dictator want us to see this, as if to say: `we don`t have to try hard, the man does most of the job already by just being himself ` . 

I think this is rather misleading. In terms of stage persona, the Nazi leader obviously had an outrageous, larger than life appearance; but the interpretation of this stage persona could not be as obvious to its contemporaries as today`s parodies would have it. The film The Wave is a good example of what I`m trying to get to: 

The last two items then can be said to look at the possible traps that comedy can land us into. For the sake of making us laugh, matters can be trivialised and taken out of context. So let`s look into what builds our context as an audience. What are you prepared to hear when you sit down in front of your TV, in a theatre seat, listen to the radio? How does the environment, the people around you, their reactions, the reason why you are there in the first place affect your perception of what the person on stage is trying to say?

Artefact 5 Evaluation

Artefact 5 was generated by observing the fact that, of all the parodied characters, the one for which comedic exaggeration is least required is Hitler. To test this, I interviewed Adina Huma from The University of Plymouth, specialising in Discourse Analysis and asked her to watch a collage of an original speech of Hitler, a cartoon version and a Monty Python sketch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzs6rMqwRJg

She thought that indeed, the cartoon and the sketch had only slightly exaggerated the stage persona of the original. Even for the cartoon version, which seems to present a raging lunatic, there is evidence of a similar behaviour on the part of the original "His oratory used to wilt his collar, unglue his forelock, glaze his eyes..."(Janet Flanner for the New Yorker).

Since the rendition of the character in terms of tone of voice, gestures, mimicry, body language was similar, the next question was how come one version produced laughter, while another was a stern reminder of past atrocities. 

The interviewee remarked that in its original context, the speaker`s ability not only to articulate the anger of its audiences, but actually recreate it on stage (“People feel it, but don't articulate it... Hence, if you don't become one of them in your articulation of it, you can't convince them that that is the truth.”). The response is visceral; the speaker`s engagement with his subject is played out rather than argued.

There is a catch with this ridiculing of Hitler, in the sense that placing the character out of context easily turns him into a loon and acts as a sort of eulogy of today`s individual who feels  he would never fall for someone as ridiculous and outrageous.  

Artefact 5 - abort and redo

Artefact 5 has proved to be quite a pain. I have made the animation but decided to redesign the artefact from scratch. I`m going to do an interview instead but before I explain why the sudden change, I`d like to take the time to explain some things I did gain from the experience of making the animation.

Having to draw and animate, both processes involving significant amount of time, even for a short and very basic project, makes you boil down your message to its essence. You think about what is really crucial in getting your point across because you don`t want to waste time working on details that add nothing to the final  work.

If you have the additional problem that I do of not being skilled in drawing, you`ll also have to consider how `simple can be better`. Simple drawings, simple actions, cut to the chase in a few frames.

The theme was `people who project their personal beliefs unto random patterns discovered on everyday objects`. The main inspiration came from the Mitchell and Webb sketch I posted earlier, but there are a few other sources to look at:

 So, why the sudden change? I just felt that although the subject was interesting, I was straying from the central point of my argument right at the end of the project. This research project`s aim was to examine how what performers do on stage, their delivery as a whole, affects how the audience understands the underlying message. The focus is on different aspects of a performance, and animation is in a way, in a league of its own, especially when it doesn`t rely on anthropomorphous characters and doesn`t use recorded voices. 

Instead, I have arranged for an online interview on the subject of discourse analysis, using a video collage as a starting point.  

Artefact 5 conundrum

I`ve had trouble deciding on what the fifth artefact should look like. First, I thought I would look at animation, on how a comedic content delivered not by a live performer but by animated characters influences the audiences` perception. More specifically, I wanted to see whether a comedian could get away with an outrageous view on a sensitive topic by dressing his argument up in the clothes of animation.

Initially, I looked for some examples. I found a few sketches from That Mitchell and Webb Look which were done using animation.

An sketch parodying a very modern day obsession called `interactivity`. In an unrelenting quest to find out what the viewers think, TV shows have become less and less reliant on delivering and uncovering facts, but have morphed into a narcissistic exercise for the masses. It`s all about what YOU think, and YOUR opinion is important to us (irrespective of whether it is an informed one or indeed, if it is relevant to anyone else except you).

Corporate ethics...rrrright! Improving our record day-by-day (disclaimer: not really!)

So, I decided to do a short animated sequence inspired by the following sketch:

Things to consider:

a) how to translate the message of the original sketch into an animated form (since the animation will not be an exact replica of the filmed version)

b) what does animation bring to the comedy table?

c) seeing that I won`t be able to record voice actors, how can animation compensate the lack of paraverbal cues?

Artefact 4 Evaluation

The immediate aim of the artefact was to make users resort to paraverbal and nonverbal signs in order to identify between a true and false scenario where the visual information was the same. The indirect aim was to observe how the impact of what the performers say depends on the impression these performers leave on their audience through the way they present their message.

When asked about the plausibility of the two scenarios, respondents found both could pass the test. The correlation between subtitles and actions on screen was sufficient, but when it came to guessing which of them is an actual sequence from within a film, the audience`s arguments for their choice started to fall back on paraverbal signs. They worded their arguments like this: `[that character] “sounded” embarrassed`, the way they spoke, it wasn`t aggressive but calm...`

Those relying solely on visual information and subtitles chose the wrong version. They focused on pattern recognition, i.e., similar scenarios played out in gangster films and consequently interpreted the following scenes to fit that scenario.

The artefacts so far looked at how different components that make up what Hodgart termed the aesthetic dimension of comedic performance contribute and influence the audience`s understanding. For the following artefacts I want to look at why parodies of Hitler seem to need less use of comic exaggeration than other historical characters and how does that affect the efficiency of the comedian`s criticism.