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 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 - 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.