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.   

Artefact 4

As I mentioned in an earlier post where I talked about the meaning of gestures, I wanted to do a second experiment that would encompass this side of a performance. Only, the way I did it this time, was to choose the same performance (a segment from a film) and, taking advantage of the language barrier, write an alternative set of subtitles that would fit the scenario. This way, hopefully, I could focus the respondents` attention on nonverbal and paraverbal cues. The scenarios were quite different; the original one was of two guys trying to blackmail and humiliate a barmaid in order to get free drinks; the alternative version re-cast them as thugs, coming for protection money.  

It should be interesting to note:

a) whether judging by the gestures and tone employed by the actors on screen, the audiences will find both scenarios plausible

b) if they will find it hard to tell which one is the original version

c) whether or not they will identify the importance of paraverbal means in their choosing the right version

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.

I do what I can...part 5

Well, here we are again...this is the spot for Comedy Cluj Film Festival and you can find it on the festival`s blog (unfortunately, only in Romanian for this year). The ending reads: `What of a world without laughter?`

Simply put: just a mild case of cartesian anxiety! part 3

BBC Documetaries - The Power of Nightmares

...talk about constructing through discourse an image new realities...myth creation in action!

I do what I can...part 4

COMEDY CLUJ: http://www.comedycluj.ro/

The Comedy Cluj site...still under construction, but getting ready for the event. I have been taken up by the volunteer coordinator as a collaborator for the site so, besides writing some of the material, I am taking my turn in coming up with suggestions for layout, spell-check, etc.

I do what I can...part 3

So, what`s new? Well, I`ve been doing some translations for film subtitles for Comedy Cluj and also done some more writing for the official website (www.comedycluj.ro). The site is still under construction, so you`ll have to take my word for it for now...I`ll leave you with the event`s mascots. Happy fellas!