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 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 3

Artefact 3 gave me the possibility to go beyond the process of theorising and actually getting to experience some of the aspects I was interested in first hand. 

Taking a keen interest in recordings of stories, books, plays and comedy sketches over the years, I was very much taken with the amazing capabilities of the act of speaking, from vocal timbre to the art of paraverbal communication. Although initially I had planned to ask students active within the Drama Society to perform the comedy sketch I had written for the purposes of this research, I ended up doing it myself, accompanied by a friend who had no previous acting experience. I told myself, performing the material will force me to be aware of the nuances and ultimate difference even a slight change in the interpretation of the material might have. 

Another interesting thing to observe was the negotiation going on during the recording of the material. I remembered the statement of a comedian about how as the author of a routine, the only way to avoid getting so bored with your material as to affect your performance was to try new ways of delivering it. Indeed, our characters also underwent significant changes. Some of these changes focused on different dominant features for a character; others focused on reactions to another character`s line without actually changing the script. 

Here is the script:

"(the sound of papers and pens being re-arranged on a desk)

NIECE: I keep telling you, uncle...anybody who is anybody is up there, on billboards, the internet or at least the local radio. It`s the only way one can survive on the market nowadays...

MR. ROTH: Well...if there is anything that could kill a long-running profitable crematorial business, it`s survival!

NIECE: Fine. Crack your jokes now but you won`t be having half as much fun when the bills roll in.

MR. ROTH: Threatening me with a doomsday scenario, are we now?

NIECE: Anyway...look, what I`ve done is I`ve posted a job ad online for a marketing position. I mean, these guys know how to sell the useless crap that gets people here in the first place. So, they might as well sell th

e idea of a person`s last shopping spree.

MR. ROTH: Shop till you drop! Hmmm, I like that idea...

NIECE: Sooooo...being the ever helpful niece and all, I`ve already sifted through the CVs and have arranged for an interview tomorrow.

MR ROTH: Uhm...but...

NIECE: Ok, so we`re settled then. (mobile beep) Oh, gotta run now, good luck tomorrow!

MR ROTH: Uhm

NEPHEW (just as he is about to disappear behind the door) Oh, and uncle...tweet me the results, will ya?

MR ROTH: Hmmhmph!

Next day...

(knock on the door)

Mr Roth opens door...

MR ROTH: Good afternoon!

LOLA: Well, hello! How d`you do?

MR. ROTH: Please, come in. Take a seat.

LOLA: Thank you!

MR ROTH: So, my neph...ahm...my associate told me you had a most flattering CV to recommend you.

LOLA: I believe my references are my forte...

MR ROTH: So, missus...

LOLA: Cocteau! Lola Cocteau!

MR ROTH: Oh...what part of you is French?

LOLA: Whichever part you might is needed..

MR ROTH: Well, then...should we start?

LOLA: Certainly...

MR ROTH: Tell us a bit about what you think you can do for our business.

LOLA:   Oh, I see. You want us to use the lingo. Very well. After many years of working directly with people –in professional settings, naturally - I decided to employ my experience in a customer service position within a company.

MR ROTH: I`m afraid there`s been a misunderstanding. We are looking for marketing people. My neph...my associate argues that our services need to be more visible on the market.

LOLA: I know that full well, Mr Roth. Except, my approach is as follows: no point in being in the limelight if your...customer service isn`t up for the job...if you see what I mean...

MR ROTH: Certainly...I mean, we`ve always thought that doing a good job will be the best advertising but...you know...people can be very touchy about these kind of things...

LOLA: I understand you perfectly, Mr. Roth. Just a case of  `the love that dare not speak its name`.

MR ROTH: Mmm...I`m not sure our clients are too concerned with romancing.

LOLA: Then again, neither are we. Everybody`s in it for the money.

MR ROTH: True. Before we go on, I have a confession to make, Mrs Cocteau...one of the reasons I hesitated about this whole marketing thing is that I have many a time been given the odd look from people because of my job and the nature of my interests.

LOLA: Oh, I think we both share this experience. I mean, people are just so judgemental, not to mention hypocritical. We know everybody`s doing it...even those who preach so strongly against it. Believe you me, deniers are actually the most obsessed with it.

MR ROTH: Yes, I was under the same impression as well. And by all means, it`s not like we urge people to do it, it just happens and so, what we`re saying is, let`s make sure that at times like these, when we are overcome with sentiment, some things are taken care of by conscientious people like you and me, who are able to hold a stiff upper lip and do what needs to done. 

LOLA: You speak from the heart, Mr Roth.

MR ROTH: From its deep and dark recesses, indeed (chuckles).

LOLA: Can I ask you a few questions?

MR ROTH: Go on...

LOLA: This is about the online ad. It didn`t make it clear, what are the basic prerequisites that you demand of your clients?

MR ROTH: We just make sure they`re stiff before they`re sent in.

LOLA: Oh, Mr Roth! Finally, a company that has high standards, not only in terms of their own work force, but of their clients as well!

MR ROTH: `Tis well understood, I should think. I must talk to my associate about the phrasing of that ad.

LOLA: And...what are the...`credentials` of the girls I`m going to be working with?

MR ROTH: Well, actually, we have a mixed team in our company. The gender distribution is fairly equal and of course, we did our best to provide equal opportunities for minorities.

LOLA: Oh, you never cease to surprise me Mr Roth! I must admit I haven`t yet had the experience of working together with such a colourful team.

MR ROTH: You need not worry, ma`am. All our employees have been with us for many years, we have established strong bonds with all of them....

LOLA: I bet you did, Mr Roth...

MR ROTH: ...we are like a big family. We love our job and whoever helps us keep the business afloat will be welcomed.

LOLA: That sounds lovely! I find myself simply enthralled by the alluring picture you`ve painted of your company. 

MR ROTH: I`m very glad. I say...how about we forget the formalities and I show you around. Just so you get to know everybody and learn the ins and outs of the company.

 LOLA: Wonderful!

MR ROTH: Now, I must warn you before we proceed, that even though I`m sure you are a professional and are somewhat familiar with the scenery you are going to be introduced to, the imagery might still come across as upsetting.

LOLA: I can take it, Mr Roth. Whatever it is, bring out your dead!"

Artefact 2...a few more thoughts

While thinking some more about how gestures and appearance build up a stage persona for the performer, I came across an interesting source about Body language in film. As I read through it, I decided to look for photos and recordings of stand-up performances to see how the respective comedians applied some of these `tricks of the trade`.  

`From antiquity to the eighteenth century the theater created models for the bodily carriage of masters and slaves. Vulgar servants keep their knees bent, legs spread apart, backs hunched, arms akimbo, heads lowered. After the 1917 Revolution Soviet poster art straightens the backs of workers. Soviet painting, sculpture and cinema are soon to follow. The hunched back is now reserved for the losing class, epitomized by white officers[...] 

Calm, measured steps and a proudly raised head distinguished the man of power. Only people of low social status—servants and slaves—were shown rushing about.` 

I think it highlights the complicity that the performer tries to establish with his audience, casting himself as one of them (the oppressed, the discontent, the little man, even the clown). It`s a reassuring `it`s OK to make fun of THEM, I`m one of you`. Although some comedians treat their audiences with a certain degree of contempt, and claim to distance themselves from both the object of their critique and their audience, the trust and attention the performer receives still rely on the notion that `we are making fun of someone else`. When the comedian will point to its audience or specific individuals, a projection of guilt still occurs. It is thus rather difficult to be funny and make a point about how the audience should accept that they are part of the problem as well and take responsibility for their actions. When comedians try to do that, a change of tone occurs and an element of preaching comes into play. The only difference between an ordinary rant and a comedy performance in this case, is that the tension accumulated as the incriminatory arguments build up, is released at times by punctuating the discourse with punchlines. 

Another fragment that grabbed my attention was this: 

` Opened and closed palms carry significant nuances of meaning. A closed fist is associated with danger. An open hand appeals to the world, signifying trust or a question; the palm facing away from the body suggests rejection, palms facing the body are a sign of invitation and welcome. 

The teacher moves his hands up and down with his palms facing his listeners. 

Lords make the same motion with their palms turned inward. The tyrant raises his hand with the palm facing the ground...`

Interesting to follow:

Body language and gestures are still a very fascinating field of inquiry that could help the research topic. I`ll have to think up a context in which viewers would need to pay close attention to it in order to decipher the message of the performance.  

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 2 - Read, listen and...be amazed!

Long time no post, but I`m back as a bad case of [place here name of recurring and obnoxious infectious disease]! 

For my second artefact, I decided I`d look for a more layered research. Instead of asking people to consider things like gestures and facial expressions, I forced them if not to observe them more closely, to at least realise how important they are within a performance. 

Here is the questionnaire:

As part of a research project which looks at the effects of delivery on audience response to comedic content, the following questionnaire is to be completed in three stages. Firstly, you will be asked to read through a transcript, answering three questions.  After that, you will listen to the audio and video version and add any further comments or observations using a different colour font.

STAGE 1

Please read the transcript you have been handed out and answer the following questions.

• What point does the performer make?

• Solely judging by this transcript, what nonverbal or paraverbal means of expression would you imagine he would mostly rely on? Please use a scale from 1-8, with 1 being the most important means of expression, and 8 the least used. If you think some of the options listed have no relevance whatsoever in the performance, grade them with 0.

1.          Gestures
2.          Body language
3.          Voice acting
4.          Impersonation
5.          Facial expressions
6.          Props
7.          Tone
8.          Emphasis

•        Whether consciously or not, the performer projects an image of himself to the public. How would you describe him? (use 3 words).

STAGE 2

After listening to the audio recording please write down any additional observations or changes you might feel have occurred in your perception of the performer. Use a different colour font.

STAGE 3

After watching the video version of the performance, please comment on the evolution of your answers throughout the three stages.

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.  

Artefact 1

COMEDIANS ON PATRIOTISM, NATIONALISM AND SYMBOLS

The video montage you are going to be shown contains fragments from the routines of three stand-up comedians (George Carlin, Bill Maher and Bill Hicks), as well as a fragment from Charlie Chaplin`s The Great Dictator. All of them express personal views on the issue of patriotism, nationalism and its symbols. After watching the entire video montage, please answer the following questions, on a separate sheet.

1. All of the featured comedians express their views on the topic of patriotism, nationalism and respect (or lack thereof) for its symbols. What exactly is their main argument of each one of them to support their view?

2. What do you think were the techniques employed by each comedian to present their argument (fictional characters, comparisons, hyperbole, spoof, etc)?

3. Having considered their techniques, what emotions and reactions do you think does each one of them wish to stir up in their audience?

4. Whether consciously or not, all of these performers project an image of themselves to the public. How would you describe each performer? (either as a character, or using 5 words to describe his persona).

5. Which of these renditions do you think delivers the funniest point on the topic and how (through the content of their argument or through word play, facial expression, body language, etc)?

 

This is the questionnaire I`ve been handing out to small groups of guinea pigs....sorry...participants...still waiting for a couple of more answers in order to write up my evaluation of the artefact, but the responses so far have been interesting and varied. Also, have a prospective second artefact coming up...

Razzle Dazzle me (the story of how wit saved the outspoken one`s bacon) part 1

...also known as my Personal Research Project in its tamed and user friendly version. This is what it`s about:

What are the tools employed by the (on-screen) satirist for delivering his views on sensitive topics and inconvenient truths to its audience?

The main focus of this research is to look at what Matthew Hodgart has called the “aesthetic value” of satire. According to him, the sometimes harsh social criticism or mockery that satirists employ to get their point across, would be perceived as being a gratuitously offensive rant, or, simply indistinguishable from everyday political discourse or journalism, if it weren`t for its propensity of creating dramatic alternative worlds, larger than life characters and absurd situations, all through intense dramatisation of commonly accepted facts.

By adding this aesthetic touch, the satirist delivers to his audience alongside the aggressive, shocking or controversial side of his performance, a slice of pure delight, caused by the way in which the material is delivered (flow, tone, facial expressions, timing, props used, characters and caricatures) and is independent of the nature of the issue that is being presented. It is an appreciation of the technique, so to speak.

And in terms of technique, satirists, drawing from a rich and varied history of their “trade”, come in all shapes and sizes (prop comedy, ventriloquism, musical satire, sketches, etc).

I would like to look at these “tricks of the trade” in conjunction with some of the more sensitive issues that comedians choose to include in their work. Which of its audiences most deep seated emotions or experiences does he tap in to for building up the imagery, the sound and feel of an argument, in order to provoke not just shock, indignation, but most importantly, a burst of laughter that no opponent of his views can deny him. Laughter is the highest form of honesty.

(Bog)Dan, capitan de plai...

...don`t worry, you will only get this reference if you have studied Romanian literature. As part of our project 3 we have been given the Bogdan script, a story that has as its main character a Romanian immigrant. As the previous working script we have been given, this one is also fairly ambiguous, which gives us freedom to develop our story in different directions. After a meeting last week, I have been assigned to do a character study for Bogdan, given that we wanted to avoid the all-too-obvious `Tom Hanks in Terminal portraying the imbecile yet resourceful immigrant` kind of scenario. Given my insight into Romanian society in general, we agreed that it would be a pity not to make use of this advantage. So, here is my study, focusing on creating a background story for the character (revolving around the issue of why he left his country), and trying to draw a few guidelines in as much as appearance and age are concerned.

Bogdan

- Character study-

Reason for leaving Romania

Bogdan was formerly an engineer working on a construction project that got massive funding. At realizing the corruption and machinations for money laundering that went on under the cover of the project, he decided to get out (for both ethical, but most importantly, personal safety considerations as we shall see later on). At this point though, his abrupt departure gave rise to suspicions within the press, anxious to know why a specialist would leave a well-paying job so suddenly, and while all things seemed to be running smoothly. Also, his superiors want him on the project because his being a specialist with no political affiliations and no business ties gave the team an aura of respectability. When Bogdan refuses to go back on his decision (he knows that if he does, he will be made into a scapegoat once the affair boils over), his colleagues threaten to sue him for breach of contract and mishandling of public funds. Bogdan leaves the country, hoping that his absence will make him invisible, and give no further fuel for the attacks and investigations of the press, thus making him a less inconvenient witness for his superiors. Having been to the UK a few years earlier during a professional training course, and having a reasonably good job prospect and social network to rely, he decides to move to the country to start anew. Yet, Bogdan receives some bad news from home: as a result of a fake anti-corruption campaign started off by a rival political party against Bogdan`s superiors (members of another political party), the press`s attention on the case has not diminished, quite the contrary, so now, Bogdan`s colleagues have put their threats to practice (they have started legal action against him). This creates a series of problems for Bogdan, who has trouble with applying for his job because of the legal conundrum and, subsequently, has a hard time preparing the ground for the arrival of his family. This is where our story picks up.  

Clothing

(Business) casual, a bit `boring`, mainly white or pastel-colored shirts, jumpers, jeans or black pants, coat (see photos)

Age

Around his mid 40s, which means he is still likely to make the decision to move to another country (social mobility decreases with age) but explains his need for a dictionary. Note: the generation that studied foreign languages before 1989 has acquired its knowledge from school and books exclusively; as there were no foreign TV programs on the network (communist regime banned them). So, there is a certain `school-like feeling` to this generation`s mastery of a foreign language and for Bogdan, who has been using English intermittently over the years during his work, his knowledge is uneven. Also, he is likely to be meticulous and diligent in his updating of English, this explains his note taking and his consulting the dictionary. 

Items

Turkish style coffee is very popular with Romanians and there is a strong cultural reference to Kent cigars (they were the most sought after foreign brand during the communist years, as many Romanians are heavy smokers). Suitcases are common for any man working in a white collar business, and since we assume Bogdan is a middle aged man, his choice of glasses is more `classic`.

 Now, let`s see what herr direktor comes up with!