http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVzBKGyoU5s
In my opinion, Will Ferrell is a comedic genius. He’s not just another guy standing on a stage trying to pull laughs out of people; he’s genuine. It’s absolutely mind-blowing to see him morph into 3 or 4 completely different characters within an hour and a half time span (something that takes an incredible amount of talent). Harry Caray, James Lipton (Inside the Actor’s Studio), Robert Goulet, Neil Diamond, Ted Kennedy, Janet Reno, and a plethora of other personalities have been portrayed by Will Ferrell. These characters are vastly different in their genders, ages, voices, and mannerisms, but he manages to look, sound, and act absurdly close to the real thing. My personal favorite is his impression of our oh-so intelligent president, George W. Bush. It is uncanny to me how he has every last stutter down; if you were to listen only, you would find it almost impossible to tell the difference between the two. He imitates Bush’s mannerisms in such a clever way, as to create humor, but without making himself look like a total fool. Of course, he makes Bush look like a fool, and it’s interesting to see just how he does it.
At the beginning of this SNL skit, “Bush” mentions that there are “some” who are beginning to doubt his administration. The audience is immediately delivered humor in the form of an understatement. Assuming that people in the audience have at least a slight idea of what’s going on in the world around them, they would find this very funny because in actuality, there are a great deal of people who doubt his administration. To contrast this, a rash overstatement is made when “Bush” calls anything he dislikes the “Axis of Evil”. This idea is emphasized and built upon throughout the skit, and by doing this, Bush’s irrationality is highlighted and made fun of. He includes many things in this Axis of Evil, including Iran, Iraq, “one of the Koreas”, Enron, Tom Daschle, the economy, France, Evil Kineval, the original Axis of Evil, Dick Cheney, and math (Dr. Evil didn’t make the cut). This provides humor not only through a ridiculous overstatement, but through an incongruity as well. In World War 2, the “Axis of Evil” was made up of Italy, Germany, and Japan…which are all countries. It is an incongruity that Bush has added every little thing that irks him or is critical against him. Of course this is an exaggeration of reality, but the point of this skit is to poke fun at how Bush misuses the phrase “Axis of Evil” in order to protect his administration.
In addition to pointing out his apparent irrationality, Bush’s stupidity (which he has shown in reality and publicly numerous times) is poked fun of throughout the skit. Going back to Meyer’s essay, the humor found in this may be a result of the audience feeling superior to Bush. An example of how his sub-par intelligence is made fun of is when Ferrell says that “one of the Koreas” is included in the Axis of Evil. There are obviously two Koreas, and he doesn’t even know which one he is in conflict with (this can also be related to the irrationality section as well). Another example is when he mentions Enron, says that people “probably wouldn’t get Enron”, then states that he doesn’t either, and that it “hurts his head” to think about it. Not only does this hint at his foolishness, but it also hints at the idea that he, as a president, has been hypocritical at times. He states that people don’t understand anything about the Enron situation, then he says that he doesn’t understand it either, which doesn’t really make much sense, especially because he’s the president. Of course, Ferrell isn’t necessarily saying that Bush didn’t understand the Enron situation… he is simply bringing out the idea of hypocrisy and stupidity in general.
Another idea that I found interesting was what he found American and what could not be considered American. He states that the economy isn’t “acting very well” and because of that, it’s un-American., and therefore, evil. He also mentions that the Axis of Evil (including the economy) “stands in the way” of what Americans value. By doing this, I believe that Ferrell is spoofing the fact that initially, people who didn’t support the War in Iraq were thought of as “communists”, “un-American”, or even “anti-American”. Again, Ferrell creates comedy though the use of exaggeration.
The last thing that really stuck out for me was how Bush was portrayed as a bully and a warmonger. He mentions that he doesn’t want to hear anything about Enron, unless it has to do with the American military “pounding it into submission”. This has to do with the idea that some people felt that Bush used too much military force, or even that he used war to “fix” things. Another instance of this is when he talks about France. After adding them to the Axis of Evil, he says, “How ya like them apples, France? Next time you’ll keep your mouth shut. Mess with Texas, and it’s straight to the Axis of Evil, got it?”. This, again, is poking fun at Bush’s military tactics. France did not support our War in Iraq, and therefore they were put on the “Axis of Evil”.
Ferrell does an awesome job of creating a parody of Bush, and I think that any other liberal-minded critic of the Bush administration would think so. While staying away from too directly poking fun at certain situations, he successfully creates replicas of reality when he makes up other situations (such as illustrating irrationality by adding Evil Kineval to the Axis of Evil, instead of talking about Osama Bin Laden, for example). He uses understatements along with overstatements and exaggerations to create humor effectively.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOe7EuHclyo
In debates about evolution versus creationism, one will notice that the arguing parties are rarely apathetic. The belief systems that correspond with each of these ideas are more often than not very passionately followed. Most people who call themselves creationists do so because they directly interpret various biblical texts; people who support the theory of evolution do so because of the evidence written in various scientific texts. Of course there are those who have supported the theory of evolution with the idea of “intelligent design” (perhaps to avoid stepping on the toes of either side), but despite this, it is difficult to “sit the fence” regarding this debate. Because of the fact that this battle of ideas is so controversial, it is interesting to me how Lewis Black can stand up in front of a large group of people and ridicule creationism without receiving a negative reaction. Granted that those who had interest in and paid to see a Lewis Black stand-up routine most likely have a general idea of what his comedy is like, it is very unlikely that all of them are non-religious supporters of evolution. Why do we, the internet audience, hear belly laughs instead of shouts of outrage?
In my opinion, the reason why Black receives a positive reaction is because he is able to build ethos initially. He establishes himself as part of the Jewish community, thus relating himself to those in the audience who also follow a religion. In addition, he reminds the audience that it was the Jewish who wrote the First Testament. He even goes so far as to make a point that Jewish people are, “good at bullshit” (referring to the First Testament) and that they needed something to distract them from the fact that they “didn’t have air conditioning” back then.
By first discussing these things, he is cleverly creating a means to keep people in the audience from feeling singled out; when he pokes fun at creationism and religion, he is poking fun at his own community as well. The situation would be entirely different if an atheist were to stand in front of a group in which the majority had, at least, a religious affiliation and tell them, from a non-religious standpoint, that creationism is absurd.
After doing this, Black is then able to use other tactics, such as sarcasm and parody. During the routine, Black mentions that he doesn’t believe in creationism because he has “thoughts”. It’s a horribly vague argument to make, but the simplicity of his reasoning is poignant. The use of sarcasm only strengthens his point that anyone capable of cognition doesn’t need to question the validity of the theory of evolution. The audience’s laughs are also bolstered by the cross-eyed and slack-jawed face that Black displays after making this potentially offensive and hurtful statement.
Black also talks quite a bit about fossils and their place in the evolution versus creationism argument. He says, “Whenever anybody tries to tell me that they believe it [the creation of the earth] took place in 7 days, I reach for a fossil and go, ‘fossil’”. Yet again his argument consists of essentially one word. Rhetorically speaking, this is representative of the fallacy of hasty conclusion, but as an audience we can assume that he is using the fossil as a symbol to convince the audience of the science behind the theory of evolution. This is effective in creating humor because, again, he is making things seem like they should be entirely obvious to anyone.
The fossil is also a key element in a segment where Black creates a parody of a man he met in Georgia. The man was convinced that fossils were the “handiwork of the devil”, and Black poked fun at him by comparing the “devil” to Wild E. Coyote, a cartoon character. He went on to mention that Wild E. Coyote was evil, had a fossil-making factory, and had hired minions to scatter fossils all over the earth. The presence of a cartoon character in his argument creates humor (as it does when he discusses how the “Flinstones” is not a documentary).
Overall, I think this video is a great piece of social critique. He finds an in with the audience and plays off of it for the entire routine. The way he delivers his comedy is incredibly unique: he shouts things (“Reality!!”), makes fun of his own community, and makes odd faces. In addition to making connections with his audience, he engages them, and people seem to love it.
In debates about evolution versus creationism, one will notice that the arguing parties are rarely apathetic. The belief systems that correspond with each of these ideas are more often than not very passionately followed. Most people who call themselves creationists do so because they directly interpret various biblical texts; people who support the theory of evolution do so because of the evidence written in various scientific texts. Of course there are those who have supported the theory of evolution with the idea of “intelligent design” (perhaps to avoid stepping on the toes of either side), but despite this, it is difficult to “sit the fence” regarding this debate. Because of the fact that this battle of ideas is so controversial, it is interesting to me how Lewis Black can stand up in front of a large group of people and ridicule creationism without receiving a negative reaction. Granted that those who had interest in and paid to see a Lewis Black stand-up routine most likely have a general idea of what his comedy is like, it is very unlikely that all of them are non-religious supporters of evolution. Why do we, the internet audience, hear belly laughs instead of shouts of outrage?
In my opinion, the reason why Black receives a positive reaction is because he is able to build ethos initially. He establishes himself as part of the Jewish community, thus relating himself to those in the audience who also follow a religion. In addition, he reminds the audience that it was the Jewish who wrote the First Testament. He even goes so far as to make a point that Jewish people are, “good at bullshit” (referring to the First Testament) and that they needed something to distract them from the fact that they “didn’t have air conditioning” back then.
By first discussing these things, he is cleverly creating a means to keep people in the audience from feeling singled out; when he pokes fun at creationism and religion, he is poking fun at his own community as well. The situation would be entirely different if an atheist were to stand in front of a group in which the majority had, at least, a religious affiliation and tell them, from a non-religious standpoint, that creationism is absurd.
After doing this, Black is then able to use other tactics, such as sarcasm and parody. During the routine, Black mentions that he doesn’t believe in creationism because he has “thoughts”. It’s a horribly vague argument to make, but the simplicity of his reasoning is poignant. The use of sarcasm only strengthens his point that anyone capable of cognition doesn’t need to question the validity of the theory of evolution. The audience’s laughs are also bolstered by the cross-eyed and slack-jawed face that Black displays after making this potentially offensive and hurtful statement.
Black also talks quite a bit about fossils and their place in the evolution versus creationism argument. He says, “Whenever anybody tries to tell me that they believe it [the creation of the earth] took place in 7 days, I reach for a fossil and go, ‘fossil’”. Yet again his argument consists of essentially one word. Rhetorically speaking, this is representative of the fallacy of hasty conclusion, but as an audience we can assume that he is using the fossil as a symbol to convince the audience of the science behind the theory of evolution. This is effective in creating humor because, again, he is making things seem like they should be entirely obvious to anyone.
The fossil is also a key element in a segment where Black creates a parody of a man he met in Georgia. The man was convinced that fossils were the “handiwork of the devil”, and Black poked fun at him by comparing the “devil” to Wild E. Coyote, a cartoon character. He went on to mention that Wild E. Coyote was evil, had a fossil-making factory, and had hired minions to scatter fossils all over the earth. The presence of a cartoon character in his argument creates humor (as it does when he discusses how the “Flinstones” is not a documentary).
Overall, I think this video is a great piece of social critique. He finds an in with the audience and plays off of it for the entire routine. The way he delivers his comedy is incredibly unique: he shouts things (“Reality!!”), makes fun of his own community, and makes odd faces. In addition to making connections with his audience, he engages them, and people seem to love it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)