I was totally surprised to see Eddie Izzard. I don't know why, but I was picturing a black guy. Nope. I certainly wasn't expecting a transvestite, but then, who really ever expects a transvestite? Anyway, I think that goes back to what Stott said about how comedians look. According to him, comedians can't look totally normal and super attractive because we don't trust that. I agree with that completely (although I can think of exceptions. Dane Cook is wildly successful and, in some opinions, quite attractive). It's true, but it's also a double edged sword. In Eddie Izzard's case, we trust him because he is not conventionally attractive. However, since he is so unconventional, he actually has to live up to his look. We expect someone who looks that strange to be extremely funny. Otherwise, it's just a weird guy bombing on stage, which is worse than a normal guy bombing on stage because at least the normal guy didn't get our hopes up.
Eddie Izzard also talks about the difference between British and American styles (if not comedy directly). He talks about the British role in Star Wars. "It's just the rebels, sir. They're here." It was very deadpan. Then the response, "Do they want tea?" I don't really have any connections to make, it just struck me funny and reminded me of the differences we pointed out about British comedy, specifically. It seems to me, British comedy is all about slapstick or it's completely deadpan. The deadpan of how he delivered the line was absolutely hilarious and very "British." He also compares the message sent from the movie The Great Escape to American and British kids. Americans get away with things and live to tell the tale, the British plan and work out logistics, all to be shot in the head.
His history jokes were probably my favorite. I loved the part about the pilgrims arriving on Plymouth rock and making fun of the Native Americans, then coming back in winter for food. Also, the moon landing was crazy amounts of funny. The idea of faking a monster attack, with Buzz Aldrin in a monster suit chasing Neil Armstrong around is so ludicrous but it would have been such a hilarious prank to play on the entire planet. I mean, if I had the chance to prank the ENTIRE planet... I might have to take it. It's really too bad they didn't think to do that.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
AbFab
I know I've heard of Absolutely Fabulous and seen clips of it (for the DVD set, yours today for only $29.99!), but I've never actually watched it. Oh my goodness was I missing out! That episode, "Fashion," was hilarious! I loved it. I was completely amazed that the first "line of dialogue" (if you could call it that) from the main character on the first episode of the first season of the show, was her blowing a giant raspberry. Holland says that Freud would argue one cause for laughter is, "the use of the sound instead of the sense of a word" (48). Personally, I was expecting a verbal answer to her wake-up calls, but was put entirely off guard when she instead blew that raspberry! It was certainly a joke in Freud's terms.
Freud also claims that in the comic, "we see an expectation defeated" (50). I found the mother-daughter relationship particularly funny. This is because the general expectation is that the mother will be the responsible one, keeping her teenager in line. In Absolutely Fabulous, however, just the opposite occurs. The daughter calls for her mother to wake up, makes breakfast, makes coffee, and urging her mother not to drink. She even goes so far as to threaten punishment (moving out) if her mother does not quit drinking. Of course, in a different context, this could be quite a sad story, but the attitudes of the characters and the mood of the story (aided by the unceasing one-liners) invites the audience to remove our emotions of concern and pity and to just laugh.
Holland explains Freud's theory that "In tendentious joking, not only do we get the pleasure of the word play or jesting, but we also gratify forbidden impulses" (48). I was quite stricken when I read this section because of the simplicity and obviousness of it. Of course that's why we like to joke! Of course that's why we think things are funny! Because we can't actually do them! Michael (of the American Office) is so hilarious because he's so wildly inappropriate! No boss would ever be allowed to do what he does, and no employee would ever want to work for him, yet millions of Americans tune in every week and crack up laughing. AbFab is the same way. No one really wants to be a crazy, irresponsible lush who is also completely self involved. But part of us does. Maybe just for a day or an hour, but we laugh at her because we want to be her! She's hilarious because she is what we want to be, again, at least for a little while. She's confident, she seems to be enjoying her life, she doesn't care what other people think or say. She's her own person and she's, well, fabulous! What more could you want?
By the way, I'm sorry this is late. I ended up passing out last night before I finished. One thing I keep forgetting to add, Netflix has the old Hitchhiker's Guide TV show which is, so far, surprisingly accurate. It's almost line-by-line, which I never imagined could be done. Anyway, if you have a chance, check it out. It's on instant play. Finally, have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Freud also claims that in the comic, "we see an expectation defeated" (50). I found the mother-daughter relationship particularly funny. This is because the general expectation is that the mother will be the responsible one, keeping her teenager in line. In Absolutely Fabulous, however, just the opposite occurs. The daughter calls for her mother to wake up, makes breakfast, makes coffee, and urging her mother not to drink. She even goes so far as to threaten punishment (moving out) if her mother does not quit drinking. Of course, in a different context, this could be quite a sad story, but the attitudes of the characters and the mood of the story (aided by the unceasing one-liners) invites the audience to remove our emotions of concern and pity and to just laugh.
Holland explains Freud's theory that "In tendentious joking, not only do we get the pleasure of the word play or jesting, but we also gratify forbidden impulses" (48). I was quite stricken when I read this section because of the simplicity and obviousness of it. Of course that's why we like to joke! Of course that's why we think things are funny! Because we can't actually do them! Michael (of the American Office) is so hilarious because he's so wildly inappropriate! No boss would ever be allowed to do what he does, and no employee would ever want to work for him, yet millions of Americans tune in every week and crack up laughing. AbFab is the same way. No one really wants to be a crazy, irresponsible lush who is also completely self involved. But part of us does. Maybe just for a day or an hour, but we laugh at her because we want to be her! She's hilarious because she is what we want to be, again, at least for a little while. She's confident, she seems to be enjoying her life, she doesn't care what other people think or say. She's her own person and she's, well, fabulous! What more could you want?
By the way, I'm sorry this is late. I ended up passing out last night before I finished. One thing I keep forgetting to add, Netflix has the old Hitchhiker's Guide TV show which is, so far, surprisingly accurate. It's almost line-by-line, which I never imagined could be done. Anyway, if you have a chance, check it out. It's on instant play. Finally, have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Mr. Bean and Mr. Stott
The first thing I noticed about Mr. Bean was how incessantly annoying the laugh track is. I've always been aware of laugh tracks but I think after the first week of this class I will forever be annoyed by them. I thought I knew Mr. Bean. I've never really been very interested in him, but I thought I knew enough about the character. Evidently, I was wrong. I was struck by the almost non-existent dialogue of the show. I had no idea it was purely physical comedy. It reminded me very much of a silent movie, which is why I concentrated on that aspect of Stott's chapter. He writes, "moving pictures were soundless until 1926, forcing humour to be silent and visual" (92). Mr. Bean takes you back to Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. His over emphasized physical humour spreads through the entire show. In the first scene, he lays down in fear on the widest high dive in history, then at the sight of the boys in line, swiftly stands up and leans nonchalantly on the rail. Once he does that, he tries to coolly find his way off the board and into the pool, failing miserably. He doesn't say a word during this entire scene, but his body says so much. It, of course, ends with the visual comedy of his swim trunks floating in the water.
Stott continues, in his section about slapstick, that the slapstick comedian is an "awkward...loner, who found [himself] swimming against the tide of modern living. Thrust as innocents into a world that they had never apparently encountered before...." (93). This passage brings to mind both the lunch scene and the stoplight scene. In the stoplight scene, Mr. Bean doesn't seem to realize that by the time he pushes his car past the light, it would be green. He doesn't seem to be a part of the world in which cars stop at stoplights. Just because a biker can bypass it, doesn't mean he can just get out and push his car. He's certainly swimming against the tide of modern living. It's absurd. In the lunch scene, though, is where the passage really comes to light. He not only goes against the tide by not bringing an easily prepared lunch. Mr. Bean seems absolutely out of touch with reality! He's cutting bread with scissors, smashing pepper with a shoe, making tea in a hot water bottle, and (for some reason) putting lettuce in his (used) sock. It doesn't make sense at all. It's inconvenient for Mr. Bean, it's weird to everyone else, and it's just all around impractical. Mr. Bean has apparently never encountered a world in which one makes his lunch before going to the park, or buys it on the way.
I didn't think I would be able to use much of the "Female Body" section of Stott's chapter, but I actually found it applicable from the get-go. It, too, talks about the silent film era. "Women who occupy the roles traditionally considered sacrosanct by men, the romantic partner or the mother, could not be represented as either physical or humorous in slapstick cinema, whereas the old or the unattractive could" (97). Obviously, that's changed little from the silent era to Mr. Bean's time. This woman did not do any of the slapstick, but was rather a victim of Mr. Bean's comedy. She was not represented as humorous at all. She got the comically tiny box of popcorn while Mr. Bean got the comically large and refused to share. She was the victim of his over dramatized "scare tactics." She was laughed at, but not herself humorous. She was, of course, the butt of the joke.
Stott continues, in his section about slapstick, that the slapstick comedian is an "awkward...loner, who found [himself] swimming against the tide of modern living. Thrust as innocents into a world that they had never apparently encountered before...." (93). This passage brings to mind both the lunch scene and the stoplight scene. In the stoplight scene, Mr. Bean doesn't seem to realize that by the time he pushes his car past the light, it would be green. He doesn't seem to be a part of the world in which cars stop at stoplights. Just because a biker can bypass it, doesn't mean he can just get out and push his car. He's certainly swimming against the tide of modern living. It's absurd. In the lunch scene, though, is where the passage really comes to light. He not only goes against the tide by not bringing an easily prepared lunch. Mr. Bean seems absolutely out of touch with reality! He's cutting bread with scissors, smashing pepper with a shoe, making tea in a hot water bottle, and (for some reason) putting lettuce in his (used) sock. It doesn't make sense at all. It's inconvenient for Mr. Bean, it's weird to everyone else, and it's just all around impractical. Mr. Bean has apparently never encountered a world in which one makes his lunch before going to the park, or buys it on the way.
I didn't think I would be able to use much of the "Female Body" section of Stott's chapter, but I actually found it applicable from the get-go. It, too, talks about the silent film era. "Women who occupy the roles traditionally considered sacrosanct by men, the romantic partner or the mother, could not be represented as either physical or humorous in slapstick cinema, whereas the old or the unattractive could" (97). Obviously, that's changed little from the silent era to Mr. Bean's time. This woman did not do any of the slapstick, but was rather a victim of Mr. Bean's comedy. She was not represented as humorous at all. She got the comically tiny box of popcorn while Mr. Bean got the comically large and refused to share. She was the victim of his over dramatized "scare tactics." She was laughed at, but not herself humorous. She was, of course, the butt of the joke.
Monday, November 15, 2010
The Young Ones / Holland
The first thing I thought when watching The Young Ones was, "Is that Drop Dead Fred??" One of the movies that defined my childhood stars Rik Mayall. So that was entertaining. Anyway, I found the episode extremely funny. My favorite character was probably Neil (or the tall one with long hair if I got his name wrong). I found his comments to be some of the more hilarious. Holland's opening lines to his book, Laughing: A Psychology of Humor, are both very true and very well demonstrated in The Young Ones. The book opens, "We don't understand it and we don't quite trust it. Those are for me the two most immediate and obvious facts about the comic" (15). I think his point about not trusting comedy is extremely truthful. Comedy often makes us uncomfortable, not necessarily due to content, but because we don't always know where a joke is going. I'm thinking of stand-up comedians whose jokes have a long set-up and the audience doesn't exactly know what they're being asked to laugh at until the punchline. It's uncomfortable to not know because the unknown is untrustworthy. A different example of this is toward the beginning of the episode, "Time," Rick calls Neil a hairy elephant, to which Neil replies that a hairy elephant would be a mammoth and that a mammoth isn't really so hairy as it is woolly. This struck me as "distrustful" because Rick is being completely serious, whereas Neil is using his own insult as a way to outwit him.
Later on, Holland says, closely resembling Bergson in part, that, "We distinguish, therefore, laughing at and laughing with someone, because laughter, by withholding pity, can serve as a weapon. We attack individuals, types, institutions, even deities by laughing at them" (17). I thought the incredibly long bit about Rick's virginity pertained to this quote. Vyvyan's constant badgering (although "badgering" is an understatement) is making fun of Rick as an individual and as a type (the type being "virgin"). He is also obviously not feeling or expressing much pity for his friend's "plight." Rather, he is very definitely laughing at Rick and not with him, and it indeed serves as a weapon of humiliation and low self esteem. It makes Rick feel attacked and the urge to defend himself. Against what? The weapon of laughter.
Finally, Holland writes, "We laugh, perhaps, when something is valued and disvalued at the same time, for example, when a person is treated as a thing, as in a slapstick routine at the circus. This brings to mind the light bulb changing scene in The Young Ones. Neil, despite his suggestion to "get a step stool" is instead, inexplicably, being catapulted into the air in order to change a light bulb. This is obviously absurd, especially when Neil asks why they are doing it this way and the reply is that they already have all the mathematics of the situation worked out. I especially loved his joke, "How many roommates does it take to change a light bulb? One, I'm the only one who does anything around here!" (That's a loose quote). Anyway, in the light bulb scene, Neil is being treated as an object- a sort of boulder with Piper Halliwell-esque time freezing capabilities who can change a light bulb whilst flying through the air.
My overall impression of The Young Ones (if you even care) is that I enjoyed watching it, and I would enjoy watching it again if the opportunity arose, but I don't know how likely I am to seek out more episodes on YouTube.
Later on, Holland says, closely resembling Bergson in part, that, "We distinguish, therefore, laughing at and laughing with someone, because laughter, by withholding pity, can serve as a weapon. We attack individuals, types, institutions, even deities by laughing at them" (17). I thought the incredibly long bit about Rick's virginity pertained to this quote. Vyvyan's constant badgering (although "badgering" is an understatement) is making fun of Rick as an individual and as a type (the type being "virgin"). He is also obviously not feeling or expressing much pity for his friend's "plight." Rather, he is very definitely laughing at Rick and not with him, and it indeed serves as a weapon of humiliation and low self esteem. It makes Rick feel attacked and the urge to defend himself. Against what? The weapon of laughter.
Finally, Holland writes, "We laugh, perhaps, when something is valued and disvalued at the same time, for example, when a person is treated as a thing, as in a slapstick routine at the circus. This brings to mind the light bulb changing scene in The Young Ones. Neil, despite his suggestion to "get a step stool" is instead, inexplicably, being catapulted into the air in order to change a light bulb. This is obviously absurd, especially when Neil asks why they are doing it this way and the reply is that they already have all the mathematics of the situation worked out. I especially loved his joke, "How many roommates does it take to change a light bulb? One, I'm the only one who does anything around here!" (That's a loose quote). Anyway, in the light bulb scene, Neil is being treated as an object- a sort of boulder with Piper Halliwell-esque time freezing capabilities who can change a light bulb whilst flying through the air.
My overall impression of The Young Ones (if you even care) is that I enjoyed watching it, and I would enjoy watching it again if the opportunity arose, but I don't know how likely I am to seek out more episodes on YouTube.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Hitchhiker's Guide Part 2
I realized too late that while I knew that I was using a different version of the book, I did not realize my page numbers would be so very different. So, if any of my quotes for today's post are from Monday's reading, I apologize. If I'm correct, we should have finished the novel today on page 170-something for you guys. My book goes to page 216, so you can see how I'm unsure of what to post. Anywho, here we go...
When Ford and Arthur are on the Vogon ship, about to be spewed into space, Arthur asks Ford if there's anything else that could save them, Ford fakes seeing some "switch" but quickly says, "'No, I was only fooling,'" and then, "'we are going to die after all" (75). Ford's morbid sense of humor is crazy at a time of intense peril. If this novel had a different tone, that could have been a moment of extreme suspense. But, due to Adams' absurd tone and method, the audience can't help but not take the situation seriously. It is even funnier given his friend's panic and confusion. A good friend would try to comfort him at this moment, but Ford does just the opposite. A fake out.
Another example of some morbid humor (apparently I'm in a morbid mood tonight) is, well, anything with Marvin. More specifically, however, at almost the very end of the novel. He tells Ford about how he got bored, plugged himself into the spaceship computer (which is incessantly cheerful at all times) and explained his view of the universe to it. "'What happened?' pressed Ford," and he was answered with, "'It committed suicide'" (214). Despite how awful the movie version of the book is, I cannot read the novel anymore without hearing Alan Rickman's voice as Marvin. Despite the downfalls of the movie, his contribution was genius. Also, the thought of the astoundingly happy computer committing suicide because of Marvin's intense depression is a little hilarious.
Finally, one of my favorite parts of the novel is the spontaneous generation of a sperm whale and his thought process before his unfortunate demise (I really am morbid tonight, aren't I?). His first words go something like this:
"Er, excuse me, who am I?
Hello?
Why am I here? What's my purpose in life?
What do I mean by who am I?" (134)
I love that the whale goes straight to metaphysical questions, pondering his existence and the meaning of life. It's really interesting that he can leap into existence, ask metaphysical questions and then hope that the ground will be his friend mere moments before his demise. He's at once naive and innocent and also a deep thinker. The petunias, however, which leapt into existence along with the whale, thought only, "oh no, not again" (135). The comparison of these two spontaneous beings further implies the comedy as the whale is evidently a new being, just trying to figure life out while the petunias have inexplicably been here before.
When Ford and Arthur are on the Vogon ship, about to be spewed into space, Arthur asks Ford if there's anything else that could save them, Ford fakes seeing some "switch" but quickly says, "'No, I was only fooling,'" and then, "'we are going to die after all" (75). Ford's morbid sense of humor is crazy at a time of intense peril. If this novel had a different tone, that could have been a moment of extreme suspense. But, due to Adams' absurd tone and method, the audience can't help but not take the situation seriously. It is even funnier given his friend's panic and confusion. A good friend would try to comfort him at this moment, but Ford does just the opposite. A fake out.
Another example of some morbid humor (apparently I'm in a morbid mood tonight) is, well, anything with Marvin. More specifically, however, at almost the very end of the novel. He tells Ford about how he got bored, plugged himself into the spaceship computer (which is incessantly cheerful at all times) and explained his view of the universe to it. "'What happened?' pressed Ford," and he was answered with, "'It committed suicide'" (214). Despite how awful the movie version of the book is, I cannot read the novel anymore without hearing Alan Rickman's voice as Marvin. Despite the downfalls of the movie, his contribution was genius. Also, the thought of the astoundingly happy computer committing suicide because of Marvin's intense depression is a little hilarious.
Finally, one of my favorite parts of the novel is the spontaneous generation of a sperm whale and his thought process before his unfortunate demise (I really am morbid tonight, aren't I?). His first words go something like this:
"Er, excuse me, who am I?
Hello?
Why am I here? What's my purpose in life?
What do I mean by who am I?" (134)
I love that the whale goes straight to metaphysical questions, pondering his existence and the meaning of life. It's really interesting that he can leap into existence, ask metaphysical questions and then hope that the ground will be his friend mere moments before his demise. He's at once naive and innocent and also a deep thinker. The petunias, however, which leapt into existence along with the whale, thought only, "oh no, not again" (135). The comparison of these two spontaneous beings further implies the comedy as the whale is evidently a new being, just trying to figure life out while the petunias have inexplicably been here before.
Monday, November 8, 2010
HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE!!! WOO!
Alright, let's not beat around the bush, shall we? I own the entire series (the increasingly inaccurately named trilogy of five), the Dirk Gently series, The Salmon of Doubt and Neil Gaiman's Don't Panic, The Guide to the Guide. I named my second car Arthur because it was a boring little car but I wanted it to have crazy adventures. I know about and participate in Towel Day on May 25 (when Adams fans honor him by carrying their trusty towel). I'm like one of those Twilight people... but with good literature. Douglas Adams is one third of the reason I chose British Literature over American. I find his writing inspirational, thought-provoking, and hilarious. Thus, I don't have many bad things to say about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Now that I've finished gushing, on to the text. One of my favorite things about the book is the Guide entries. For instance, the entry on towels (too long to quote) makes some very interesting points as to the utility of a simple towel such as using it, "to sail a miniraft down the slow heavy River Moth" (27). Despite whether or not the River of Moth exists (or any other location mentioned), the best part about the Guide is that it doesn't lie. You can use a towel to do all those things, but who would have thought to, had it not been for this book? Also, having a towel is therapeutic for a non-hitchhiker as it implies having other essential items like "a toothbrush, washcloth, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet-weather gear, space suit, etc." (27). While this list is obviously exaggerated, it points out the naivete of those non-group members who aren't in on the joke.
One of my all-time favorite quotes is about the Vogon ships arriving to destroy Earth: "The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't" (33). This quote, in my opinion, sums up Douglas Adams. He describes wonderfully, all sorts of details. But he describes them in much the same way that everyone else doesn't. His turn of phrase not only makes us laugh because of its absurdity, but also because it makes us think. Few people use negative correlations in metaphor because it goes against the initial idea. Yet somehow, though we cannot see the Vogon ships, we know exactly how they are hanging in the sky because we know how bricks don't. It works, but in a way that is so absurd, it's thought-provoking.
I also found Mr. Prosser, a character about whom I had almost completely forgotten, to be rather funny this time around. We learn that Mr. Prosser is a distant but direct descendant of Genghis Kahn. "Mr. Prosser's mouth opened and closed a couple of times while his mind was for a moment filled with inexplicable but terribly attractive visions of Arthur Dent's house being consumed with fire and Arthur himself running screaming from the blazing ruin with at least three hefty spears protruding from his back. Mr. Prosser was often bothered with visions like these and they made him feel very nervous" (9). The constant references to barbaric scenes and urges were hilarious when paired with the man having them- a stuttering, balding man working for the government. The juxtaposition of Genghis Kahn and "stooge" in the same body is really funny, especially since the "stooge" is the guy in charge and Genghis Kahn is an involuntary, unwanted area of his consciousness. It also makes the reader feel "in" on the joke that this poor man, victim of the joke, is left out.
Now that I've finished gushing, on to the text. One of my favorite things about the book is the Guide entries. For instance, the entry on towels (too long to quote) makes some very interesting points as to the utility of a simple towel such as using it, "to sail a miniraft down the slow heavy River Moth" (27). Despite whether or not the River of Moth exists (or any other location mentioned), the best part about the Guide is that it doesn't lie. You can use a towel to do all those things, but who would have thought to, had it not been for this book? Also, having a towel is therapeutic for a non-hitchhiker as it implies having other essential items like "a toothbrush, washcloth, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet-weather gear, space suit, etc." (27). While this list is obviously exaggerated, it points out the naivete of those non-group members who aren't in on the joke.
One of my all-time favorite quotes is about the Vogon ships arriving to destroy Earth: "The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't" (33). This quote, in my opinion, sums up Douglas Adams. He describes wonderfully, all sorts of details. But he describes them in much the same way that everyone else doesn't. His turn of phrase not only makes us laugh because of its absurdity, but also because it makes us think. Few people use negative correlations in metaphor because it goes against the initial idea. Yet somehow, though we cannot see the Vogon ships, we know exactly how they are hanging in the sky because we know how bricks don't. It works, but in a way that is so absurd, it's thought-provoking.
I also found Mr. Prosser, a character about whom I had almost completely forgotten, to be rather funny this time around. We learn that Mr. Prosser is a distant but direct descendant of Genghis Kahn. "Mr. Prosser's mouth opened and closed a couple of times while his mind was for a moment filled with inexplicable but terribly attractive visions of Arthur Dent's house being consumed with fire and Arthur himself running screaming from the blazing ruin with at least three hefty spears protruding from his back. Mr. Prosser was often bothered with visions like these and they made him feel very nervous" (9). The constant references to barbaric scenes and urges were hilarious when paired with the man having them- a stuttering, balding man working for the government. The juxtaposition of Genghis Kahn and "stooge" in the same body is really funny, especially since the "stooge" is the guy in charge and Genghis Kahn is an involuntary, unwanted area of his consciousness. It also makes the reader feel "in" on the joke that this poor man, victim of the joke, is left out.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Monty Python. Again.
I wonder if I can count the number of times I've watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail in or for a class. I've watched it at least once in high school and at least three times in college. And unfortunately, I've watched it a couple of times with friends. I will admit, every time I watch it, something makes me laugh and it's usually an enjoyable experience. It has never, however, been exactly my cup of tea. The first time I watched it, I remember laughing hysterically at the monks chanting and hitting themselves with - what were they? boards? I guess one could relate that to Bergson's idea that we laugh at the mechanical nature of humans. The monks are quite mechanical in their movement and the action is wholly unexpected from them, as corporal self punishment is thought of as very unnatural and inhuman.
Another funny scene is the one in which the villagers are trying to decide if the woman is a witch. I enjoyed this scene most when I watched it for my Critical Reasoning class last year. It was hilarious picking out all of the fallacies and just really focusing on how incredibly illogical it was. I mean, obviously, it's supposed to be illogical, but when that's the only thing you're focusing on, it becomes more so.
The knights who say "Ni" has never struck me as funny. Call me crazy, but I just don't get it. It's just dumb to me. During that part, however, the "Bring out your dead!" scene always gets a laugh. The slapstick aspect of the entire film again ties in with Bergson's theory on laughing at what is not graceful as opposed to laughing at what is grotesque. The monks, the "bring out your dead," the crazy bunny, all of these things tie into the ungraceful and nonsensical comedic theories.
Finally, on the wittier side of things, is the taunting of the French guards. As one of our classmates pointed out, it doesn't matter what they say, the French accent is just funny! The taunts and ridiculous threats could be a form of verbal slapstick, again because of the nonsense, ungraceful nature, and over-the-top attitude. They could also be viewed as the makers' satirical wit coming out to make fun of the French, Arthurian lore, and society in general. And yet again, so could the rest of the movie. So now the movie is a history lesson, a logic lesson, one of many depictions of King Arthur, and a study of how slapstick, wit, and satire can work together in British Comedy. Impressive, but it's still not my cup of tea.
Oh, a thought from last time, Cecily has a "diary" that really acts as a commonplace book in The Importance of Being Earnest. I don't really have much to say about it other than I noticed it and it made me smile. Also, I have evidently been spelling "Earnest" wrong this entire time and I'm thoroughly embarrassed about it.
Another funny scene is the one in which the villagers are trying to decide if the woman is a witch. I enjoyed this scene most when I watched it for my Critical Reasoning class last year. It was hilarious picking out all of the fallacies and just really focusing on how incredibly illogical it was. I mean, obviously, it's supposed to be illogical, but when that's the only thing you're focusing on, it becomes more so.
The knights who say "Ni" has never struck me as funny. Call me crazy, but I just don't get it. It's just dumb to me. During that part, however, the "Bring out your dead!" scene always gets a laugh. The slapstick aspect of the entire film again ties in with Bergson's theory on laughing at what is not graceful as opposed to laughing at what is grotesque. The monks, the "bring out your dead," the crazy bunny, all of these things tie into the ungraceful and nonsensical comedic theories.
Finally, on the wittier side of things, is the taunting of the French guards. As one of our classmates pointed out, it doesn't matter what they say, the French accent is just funny! The taunts and ridiculous threats could be a form of verbal slapstick, again because of the nonsense, ungraceful nature, and over-the-top attitude. They could also be viewed as the makers' satirical wit coming out to make fun of the French, Arthurian lore, and society in general. And yet again, so could the rest of the movie. So now the movie is a history lesson, a logic lesson, one of many depictions of King Arthur, and a study of how slapstick, wit, and satire can work together in British Comedy. Impressive, but it's still not my cup of tea.
Oh, a thought from last time, Cecily has a "diary" that really acts as a commonplace book in The Importance of Being Earnest. I don't really have much to say about it other than I noticed it and it made me smile. Also, I have evidently been spelling "Earnest" wrong this entire time and I'm thoroughly embarrassed about it.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Unit III Oscar Wilde Commonplace/ Class Post
Oscar Wilde's An Ideal Husband and The Importance of Being Ernest were both hilarious reads. I felt that if I underlined or highlighted every funny part, I would have two entirely yellow plays. They were thoroughly enjoyable to read. One of my favorite parts of either play was in Act I of The Importance of Being Ernest in which Jack and Algernon are conversing (pages 312-313).
Jack: I am sick to death of cleverness. Everybody is clever nowadays. You can't go anywhere without meeting clever people. The thing has become an absolute public nuisance. I wish to goodness we had a few fools left.
Algernon: We have.
Jack: I should extremely like to meet them. What do they talk about?
Algernon: The fools? Oh! about the clever people, of course.
Jack: What fools!
This conversation is absolutely hilarious. Jack tries to criticize Algy for being clever and Algy turns the argument into calling Jack a fool, to which Jack unwittingly agrees! However, when read with Gantar, the scene changes a bit, or rather, Jack's final sentiment changes. Perhaps he is not oblivious to what Algernon is saying about him, but rather deciding that he is right and going from "other" at which we laugh to being in on the joke. When discussing gentle laughter, Gantar says, "Menander changes the focus of Greek comedy so that the laughter it generates is no longer oriented towards an easily recognizable scapegoat but originates in a careful introspection of the spectators themselves who have to admit, before they can laugh, that they too are afflicted by the same weaknesses as the characters" (40). While at first this seems a rather satirical and "malevolent" form of laughter, it turns out to be an example of the gentler sort. Jack realizes his foolishness and embraces it with the exclamation "What fools!" The audience, too, finds that though they may not have had this exact conversation, that they are guilty of his same offense. Everyone has at some time criticized another only to be proven wrong. I certainly have. This scene is so funny not only because of the irony in the situation but because the audience can relate to Jack's situation. So, in laughing at him, we laugh at ourselves.
In An Ideal Husband, my favorite parts included the stage directions and any scene with Mabel and Lord Goring. Here is one such scene (page 219) in which Lord Goring is just taking his leave as Mabel enters the room.
Mabel: Just when I have come in! What dreadful manners you have! I am sure you were very badly brought up.
Goring: I was.
Mabel: I wish I had brought you up!
Goring: I am so sorry you didn't.
Mabel: It is too late now, I suppose?
Goring [smiling]: I am not so sure.
I couldn't help it, every single scene with these two I imagined acted extremely sexually. Read with innocence, this scene is mostly just annoying. Read with some innuendo and the right tone, it's both funny and provocative. Basically, it's just better. It's the same with almost all of their dialogue together. It could be read as vain and annoying or very sexual and funny. Especially, as in this scene, when others are present and double entendre is the game. In the 1999 version of the movie, Minnie Driver and Rupert Everett play the parts with some sexual tension, but not as much as I imagine. In some scenes, she plays the innocent role then walks away with an aside that shows she is not as innocent as she seems, which is also funny, as the joke is on him. As Gantar says on page 38 of her essay, "the highly customized laughter that aims at an individualized Other offers the spectator a degree of immunity." Since the movie encourages us to laugh at Lord Goring, and more specifically, it encourages women to laugh at men, women do not feel threatened by this joke. It is a rare case in which a man is the butt of the joke and women are encouraged to laugh while men (though they may laugh at Goring) feel uncomfortable and susceptible to being laughed at themselves. It's also funny that in the movie, the characters go to see a performance of The Importance of Being Ernest.
Finally, I had to laugh at the muffin scene in The Importance of Being Ernest. After their true identities have been found out by the women they plan to marry, Jack and Algy are stewing over what to do. Algy starts to eat muffins. (page 341)
Jack: How you can sit there, calmly eating muffins when we are in this horrible trouble, I can't make out. You seem to me to be perfectly heartless.
Algy: Well, I can't eat muffins in an agitated manner. The butter would probably get on my cuffs. One should always eat muffins quite calmly. It is the only way to eat them.
Gantar discusses nonsense on page 60 of "The Pleasure of Fools." It reads, "Nonsense abolishes all hierarchies of discourse and tolerates no hegemony. It disempowers everyone. It is no longer marred by semantic noise." Algy's talk about eating muffins in an agitated state is purely nonsense. It is true, however the though of an angry muffin-eater is so silly that his statement can hardly be called insightful, but it could constitute as nonsense. His nonsense disempowers Jack, who is completely preoccupied with other thoughts and troubles. Yet Algy's nonsense distracts him, taking him away from his train of thought and preoccupation.
I'd just like to say that I've completely enjoyed these plays. I'm sorry I didn't get anything in on Wednesday. I was "honeymooning" in Kansas City and believe it or not the hotel didn't have wifi (I didn't believe it either). Anyway, I'm back on track and I don't plan on missing anything else. I'm super stoked about Hitchhiker's Guide!!
Jack: I am sick to death of cleverness. Everybody is clever nowadays. You can't go anywhere without meeting clever people. The thing has become an absolute public nuisance. I wish to goodness we had a few fools left.
Algernon: We have.
Jack: I should extremely like to meet them. What do they talk about?
Algernon: The fools? Oh! about the clever people, of course.
Jack: What fools!
This conversation is absolutely hilarious. Jack tries to criticize Algy for being clever and Algy turns the argument into calling Jack a fool, to which Jack unwittingly agrees! However, when read with Gantar, the scene changes a bit, or rather, Jack's final sentiment changes. Perhaps he is not oblivious to what Algernon is saying about him, but rather deciding that he is right and going from "other" at which we laugh to being in on the joke. When discussing gentle laughter, Gantar says, "Menander changes the focus of Greek comedy so that the laughter it generates is no longer oriented towards an easily recognizable scapegoat but originates in a careful introspection of the spectators themselves who have to admit, before they can laugh, that they too are afflicted by the same weaknesses as the characters" (40). While at first this seems a rather satirical and "malevolent" form of laughter, it turns out to be an example of the gentler sort. Jack realizes his foolishness and embraces it with the exclamation "What fools!" The audience, too, finds that though they may not have had this exact conversation, that they are guilty of his same offense. Everyone has at some time criticized another only to be proven wrong. I certainly have. This scene is so funny not only because of the irony in the situation but because the audience can relate to Jack's situation. So, in laughing at him, we laugh at ourselves.
In An Ideal Husband, my favorite parts included the stage directions and any scene with Mabel and Lord Goring. Here is one such scene (page 219) in which Lord Goring is just taking his leave as Mabel enters the room.
Mabel: Just when I have come in! What dreadful manners you have! I am sure you were very badly brought up.
Goring: I was.
Mabel: I wish I had brought you up!
Goring: I am so sorry you didn't.
Mabel: It is too late now, I suppose?
Goring [smiling]: I am not so sure.
I couldn't help it, every single scene with these two I imagined acted extremely sexually. Read with innocence, this scene is mostly just annoying. Read with some innuendo and the right tone, it's both funny and provocative. Basically, it's just better. It's the same with almost all of their dialogue together. It could be read as vain and annoying or very sexual and funny. Especially, as in this scene, when others are present and double entendre is the game. In the 1999 version of the movie, Minnie Driver and Rupert Everett play the parts with some sexual tension, but not as much as I imagine. In some scenes, she plays the innocent role then walks away with an aside that shows she is not as innocent as she seems, which is also funny, as the joke is on him. As Gantar says on page 38 of her essay, "the highly customized laughter that aims at an individualized Other offers the spectator a degree of immunity." Since the movie encourages us to laugh at Lord Goring, and more specifically, it encourages women to laugh at men, women do not feel threatened by this joke. It is a rare case in which a man is the butt of the joke and women are encouraged to laugh while men (though they may laugh at Goring) feel uncomfortable and susceptible to being laughed at themselves. It's also funny that in the movie, the characters go to see a performance of The Importance of Being Ernest.
Finally, I had to laugh at the muffin scene in The Importance of Being Ernest. After their true identities have been found out by the women they plan to marry, Jack and Algy are stewing over what to do. Algy starts to eat muffins. (page 341)
Jack: How you can sit there, calmly eating muffins when we are in this horrible trouble, I can't make out. You seem to me to be perfectly heartless.
Algy: Well, I can't eat muffins in an agitated manner. The butter would probably get on my cuffs. One should always eat muffins quite calmly. It is the only way to eat them.
Gantar discusses nonsense on page 60 of "The Pleasure of Fools." It reads, "Nonsense abolishes all hierarchies of discourse and tolerates no hegemony. It disempowers everyone. It is no longer marred by semantic noise." Algy's talk about eating muffins in an agitated state is purely nonsense. It is true, however the though of an angry muffin-eater is so silly that his statement can hardly be called insightful, but it could constitute as nonsense. His nonsense disempowers Jack, who is completely preoccupied with other thoughts and troubles. Yet Algy's nonsense distracts him, taking him away from his train of thought and preoccupation.
I'd just like to say that I've completely enjoyed these plays. I'm sorry I didn't get anything in on Wednesday. I was "honeymooning" in Kansas City and believe it or not the hotel didn't have wifi (I didn't believe it either). Anyway, I'm back on track and I don't plan on missing anything else. I'm super stoked about Hitchhiker's Guide!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)