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 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 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.   

Artefact 3 Evaluation

The aim of this artefact was to gauge how the attention of the audience can be maintained and directed strictly through the use of audio means. A sketch especially conceived for this purpose was recorded and played to two focus groups that had no previous knowledge of the subject or characters of the sketch.

There were difficulties in deciphering the content of the sketch as well as identifying the characters. A number of cues and supplementary questions were asked in order to aid the audiences understanding. Asked to picture the characters, they could identify the broad picture, but didn`t make connections between the verbal and the paraverbal initially. Asked to describe the plot, the first group was much more effective, while the second group complained about the poor acoustics of the room and needed two re-runs of the material to get even a basic understanding of the subject.  They also mentioned receiving the content in a fragmented manner (“I would hear the odd joke”).

The focus of the participants’ attention seemed to lay on getting an overall picture of the plot and characters from listening to the dialogue, which they would later (presumably) flesh out with the aid of visuals. Given the lack of visual aids, the only source of supplementary information would have been paraverbal cues.  As one respondent noted, our current reliance on mainly visual information has made audiences relatively desensitised with regards registering the subtle signs provided through paraverbal language. The next artefact will look at a specific situation in which audiences might voluntarily rely on paraverbal language to distinguish between a genuine or a false message. 

Artefact 2 Evaluation

Artefact 2 was concerned with testing how the performer`s appearance and bearing on stage directs or distracts the audience`s attention from his argument. Participants were given a transcript, an audio and a video version of a segment and asked to specify the subject of the talk, their perception of the character whose role the performer assumed on stage, and to rank elements of his performance (nonverbal and paraverbal) throughout the three stages.

Results showed that every single respondent described the comedian`s argument differently. Even when some similarities did emerge (politics and lying, imperialism), what respondents felt the comedian lay emphasis on in his routine differed.

The ranking of paraverbal and nonverbal means of expressions revealed that in the piecing together of the performer`s image, vocal cues play the role of the adjectives, which are then attached to the noun that is provided most strongly by the visual impact. For instance, words like “smug”, “sarcastic”, “moralistic”, “guilt-ridden” and “disappointed” have all emerged after the audio recording, followed by labels attached to the subject: teacher, eye-catching performer, history teacher.

Another interesting aspect the experiment has revealed is that most respondents were tempted to contradict their previous responses after seeing the video version, showing that they trusted their eyes more than their hearing in giving their verdict, despite the fact that the bulk of their initial information was provided by the audio version.

Artefact 3 will leave out image in favour of sound. The characters will be fictional rather than known performers. The objective is to see how well can performers gather the audience`s attention and direct it towards the points they wish to make within their material. The subjects will have no prior knowledge of the theme of the sketch or its characters. 

Artefact 1 Evaluation

Artefact 1 presented 5 respondents with 4 renditions that dealt with the topic of nationalism. The aims were:

• How close is the message the comedians wish to put across to the public to what the audience really hears.
• What is  the interaction between the public and the performer. How does the latter try to influence the former by inducing feelings of outrage, embarrassment, etc and – on a second note – how does the public shape a comedian`s style.

The respondents formed a consensus around questions dealing with the performers` arguments, their method of delivering them and which one they found the funniest. However, questions centring on performer and audience interaction have generated varied answers. 

Three respondents remarked Hicks` pronounced verbal and gestural aggressiveness towards a specific outer group, inciting the audience to share in the revolt. Another interviewee described him as the angry man inside a glass box, shouting out his views because he is used to them falling on deaf ears (a surprisingly accurate remark, biographically speaking). The last respondent found his style off-putting and incomprehensible.

Four out of five respondents found Chaplin`s spoof of Hitler as an effective antithesis and a mobilising discourse for emancipation, with one of them mentioning the disturbing and contradictory feelings that the Nazi imagery evoked despite the uplifting monologue. A different response came from an interviewee who considered the act as depicting not an antithesis, but rather the cynicism of the dictator, who promises to lead the flock out of their slavery, precisely by offering freedom. 

Everyone found Maher to be the funniest, although they`ve thought his delivery was classic punch line humour. Asking supplementary questions emphasised the answer: his timing, rhythm and the fact that his target was unproblematic. An outer group, treated with disdain but not in an aggressive manner. The element of introspection is overridden by the joyous laughter that simply separates `us` - those laughing – from `them`, the subject of our laughter. 

What I want the audience to focus more on in the next artefact is how much does the performer `s stage persona influence what they `hear`. This is why I have chosen a more out of the ordinary comedian, who does present himself, as much as outer appearance is concerned, as an eccentric character, yet his verbal delivery is quite the opposite. His name will not be disclosed beforehand and the chosen audience this time will have to be unaware of the comedian`s appearance. They will be given a text version, an audio only version and only later, after completing the questionnaire, the full video version of the routine.