“A successful comedy is not so much about what you do, it’s more about how you do it” (Ferguson, 2010. P 4). Amy’s Schumer’s sketch “12 Angry men” featured on her television show Inside Amy Schumer is a parody of the Oscar-nominated movie of the same title. However, Schumer’s sketch revolves around twelve men deciding if Amy Schumer is ‘hot enough’ to be on television, instead of the original movie where they decided the fate of a boy. Schumer’s take on the sketch is a reflection on modern day gender stereotyping in the modern workplace. Majority of people are under the impression that “sex discrimination no longer presents a significant problem for working women” (Gregory, 2003. P 5.), which is why strong feminists such as Amy Schumer write skits to not only create entertainment but to also present and communicate important ideas and discussions about gender equality and women in the workplace. Using a variety of Tim Ferguson’s “Principles of comedy” (Ferguson, 2011 p.5)). Schumer created a sketch that saw the eyes of the female audience sparkle with relatability. She used exaggeration, and inverted values to reveal the bare truths of continual gender discrimination. This sketch further utilises Ferguson’s “Gag Principles” (Ferguson, 2010 p.9) by contrasting elements, and always drawing upon a grain of truth. ‘Inside Amy Schumer’s’ parody of 12 Angry men encompasses the issues that remain in the workplace, and utilises Ferguson’s principles to highlight their flaws.

Schumer’s 12 Angry men sketch is a parody on the 1957 movie by the same name. In the original movie, 12 jurors discuss the case of a teenage boy set to be put to death if found guilty. However, Schumer’s sketch follows twelve men seeking a unanimous vote on whether Amy Schumer is hot enough to be on television, or, as it is so eloquently put in the sketch “does she give [them] reasonable chub”? (12 Angry Men 2016). The initial joke and issue of discussion is set at the start of the sketch, as one of the characters calls the jurors to take their seats. He goes on to explain how they must reach a twelve nothing, unanimous vote and then “gentlemen, raise your hands, please, if you think that Amy Schumer is not hot enough to be on television”. Schumer has used her comedic skills to paint light on the continuing issue of gender discrimination in the workplace, particularly homing in on how a woman must look “to be on tv” (12 Angry Men. 2016). Presently, there is a huge amount of gender discrimination in all workplaces, especially throughout Hollywood. Where a woman’s looks are placed much higher than anything else on her ‘Why are you important?’ scale in comparison to a man. Schumer’s sketch highlights this fact and, “because acts of sex discrimination are frequently subtly conceived and not readily detectable” (Gregory, 2003, p.11), it is very important to the industry she has done so.

Exaggeration, inverted values and offering the audience a bare truth hold strong comedic value. Schumer utilises all three of these throughout the duration of her sketch. In fact, the entire sketch itself is an exaggeration of inverted values. However, both are used specifically throughout the sketch and simultaneously provide humour and send a message. Exaggeration describes when “the punchline takes the premise to a nonsensical extreme” (Ferguson, 2010 p.31). At one point in the sketch, after much discussion revolving what gives a woman validity, the characters realise their dismissal of less attractive women, regardless of their talent. The gag is regarding X-factor sensation Susan Boyle. Even though she has a beautiful singing voice she “looks like an 18^th Century paper boy [so they] treat her like toilet shoes” (12 Angry Men, 2016). The extreme wording paints a picture in the audience’s head to draw a laugh.

Inverted values “portray the trivial as important…to illuminate larger truths, or expose fallacies in accepted truths” (Ferguson 2010 p.3). Throughout the entire sketch, Schumer keeps drawing back this overarching theme. Discussing if Amy Schumer is “hot enough” is a ludicrous discussion to be having in a courtroom punchlines like “if we decide she is not bang-able” remind the audience of that and demand a laugh. Furthermore, the undertone offering a bare truth is the clever way Schumer sends her message. While the audience laughs along, the underlying truth is that women are judged in such a way, albeit less official than a courtroom. But it’s the, almost self-deprecating humour, we all have inside us that makes us laugh at the absurdity of 12 Angry Men.

A common technique a lot of writers draw upon when describing the difference between men and women in, in this case, showbiz is by putting the opposite sex in the same situation. Much to the dismay of popular comedic actor, Kevin James, Schumer uses him as an example of an ‘ugly male’ and contrasts him against Amy, as the characters ask themselves if Kevin James is hot enough to be a protagonist while Amy Schumer isn’t. To which, of course, the response, is “I’m not thinking about fucking Kevin James”. The blunt, bare truth of the punchline holds enough shock value for an immediate laugh, as the message is made clear through the contrast.

Schumer’s sketch is, almost in entirety, based around the absurdity of gender discrimination in the workplace, using Hollywood as an example. She uses many of the principles Ferguson discusses in his book The Cheeky Monkey which, of course, work together to create a successful comedic sketch. However, like all good narratives, the characters demonstrate growth, as, throughout the sketch, they realise how much validity a woman receives directly correlates with her looks. The scene finishes without a resolution for the judge, and in doing so, shows the character development of the men as they realise that Amy Schumer, might, in fact, be hot enough to be on television.

Nevertheless, while the body of the jokes in this sketch are made up of exaggeration, inverted values and contrast, the skeleton frame is the complete and utter, bare truth of it.

12 Angry Men. (2016). [Video] Directed by A. Schumer. Hollyw: Comedy Central

Ferguson, T. (2011). The cheeky monkey. Strawberry Hills, N.S.W.: Currency Press.

Gregory, R. (2003). Women and workplace discrimination. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp.Chapter 1,2 and 11.

https://www.bankrate.com/lifestyle/celebrity-money/kevin-james-net-worth/

https://www.biography.com/people/susan-boyle-454696

12 Angry Men video