Beyond a joke – week 9 reflection

In week 9, my group and I really knuckled down on script-writing and narrative work. Before this, we had many different documents containing various parts and versions of the script. Whilst these are all valuable and useful to see how our script has developed over time, after a chat with Bradley we decided we needed to collate them into one cohesive document. This therefore meant we needed to solidify some loose ideas that became very apparent as the project progressed. Oscar and I are the main writers for our team, and we worked collaboratively to finalise this.

As a group we also brainstormed ideas for the middle of our narrative. Ever since the beginning of the project, we always had a strong idea of how the film should begin and end, but the middle sequences were always a bit feeble. After some long brainstorming, we came up with the idea that our main character, Agent Whyte, should be searching for the building where she is to find Agent Wolley. This gives her a strong purpose and can flesh out the narrative more. Along the way, she encounters various people and obstacles of modern life that she navigates in a goofy fashion.

We also had to prepare out work in progress (WIP) presentation that is going to be presented in week 10. In this presentation we needed to clearly outline to the class and the panel of guests the outline of the film, inspirations, and comedic concepts and theories. Working on this, we outlined how we are using the genre hybridisation (combining action and comedy) and incongruity, with elements of parody and satire as well. This week was very productive as we finalised a lot of writing and began thinking about production things as well such as location scouting, costumes, and production equipment.

Beyond a joke – week 8 reflection

I unfortunately wasn’t able to attend Monday’s class, however during this time our group thought of a new, more cohesive narrative. It was changed from the original narrative, but with similar concepts and ideas. Our new plot is a spy film, with an agent being sent on a mission to the future. But the comedic twist is that the agent is extremely goofy. She takes her job seriously but her persona is childish. She is very fascinated with aspects of modern life, (as she is from 1964), such as phones, social media, vapes, TikTok dances, google, and more. Our character is based around similar characters in film and television like Buddy the elf (from Elf), Mr Bean, and Johnny English.

On Wednesday’s class we solidified the narrative, as previously we had just a basic outline of the plot. Specifically it was quite difficult to think of ideas for the mission she is being sent on. We want it to be interesting but also not too complicated that it’s unachievable. We ended up solidifying the mission; she is being sent into the future by her Boss to get a list of names of agents that are going to be wrongfully imprisoned in the future, so her Boss can help them hide from the enemies.

During this time we also drafted many ‘vomit drafts’ of the opening scenes. We researched possible locations to film as well, such as some of RMIT’s ‘sci-fi’ looking buildings, outside the state library, federation square and Flinders street station.

Beyond a joke week 7 – Major project ideas and reflection

Ideas, comedy mood board, and reflection

Link to group contract and expectations document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ucnxGGarOvfoQYnYCucXUVxiS4CybhDQrI4luwMJ5gQ/edit

Initial ideas and concepts

Brainstorm

  • Revolving around one character, out of touch with reality.
  • Some sort of social issue or external topic that we comment on through the character.
  • A bunch of small sketches revolving around the same character.
  • A person from an older time navigating life in 2024.
  • Making fun of modern times.
  • Start of one sketch: silent comedy OR black and white, giving background on the character’s previous life.
  • Wanda Vision reference, The Wizard of Oz – Tone shift. She’s transported into today’s world.
  • Each sketch revolves around her navigating different aspects of modern society; going to uni, social media, slang, clothing, technology.

Ideas, concepts, and narrative

  • A person who’s been transported from an older time suddenly having to navigate life and society in 2024.
  • Some aspects can be satirical, and comment on how times have changed or NOT changed from the past.
  • The character is bewildered and confused of modern times.
  • A group of sketches each showing the character navigate a different aspect of modern life, e.g. going to uni, social media, slang, clothing, technology.
  • Using elements of incongruity, satire, parody, genre hybridisation (drama and comedy).

 

Comedy mood board

  • This clip is from The Wizard of Oz, which shows Dorothy stepping into technicolour, when the film had previously been in a brown tone. We like the idea of having a sudden change like this in our project. Our plan is to have our main character transported from an earlier time (such as 1950’s) to 2024. A way we’d like to make this clear to the audience is to have the first part of the project in black and white and suddenly change to colour.
  • The film 17 Again serves as inspiration for our project. The film revolves around a man who’s transported back into his 17-year-old self. Whilst our narrative, style, and form are a quite different, the overall concept of having a character transported into a different time and having to navigate life is an idea we are exploring.
  • Another film with a similar idea is 13 Going on 30, in which the main character has jumped from 13 years old to 30 and has to navigate life in a different time. Whilst this a Hollywood blockbuster type of film and our project aims to have a simpler vibe, the concept in this film serves as inspiration.
  • This clip is a part of Hannah Camilleri’s group of sketches called Little Shits. We aim to achieve a similar form of episodic type sketches that revolve around the same character/s and central idea. We like the idea of having smaller sketches put together to make a collection of them, each one showing our character navigating different aspects of life in 2024.
  • Another inspiration we have is Mr Bean. We all were interested in our story revolving around one character who is somehow different to the world around them, and Mr Bean is a perfect example of this.

   

 

Reflection on the group’s first week

This week we got into our groups for the final project and started brainstorming ideas that we’d like to explore. In the first lesson we agreed we were interested in doing a collective group of sketches revolving around one character who is somehow out of touch with reality, like Mr Bean. We also liked the format of Hannah Camilleri’s Little Shits, a group of sketches put together with the same central idea and characters. In the second lesson, we created our group contract and expectations document, our timeline and schedule, and brainstormed ideas for the narrative. We decided on having a character transported from an older time, such as 1950’s, into 2024 and has to go through life in modern times without prior knowledge of it.

I believe my group works well together, we bounce ideas off each other and listen to what everyone has to say. We also identified our strengths and areas of production that we would most like to work on. We have a diverse range of skills in our group which is very beneficial, as we can have a leader in each area and also learn things from each other. I’m very excited to continue developing this project and working towards making something we are proud of.

 

 

Genre hybridisation sketch

Hybridisation experiment #3: Genre Hybridisation

Sketch link: https://youtu.be/xcx1W7-YPis

This week we focused on the idea of genre hybridisation. This refers to combining genres together, but more specifically in our studio, combining comedy with another genre. This does not mean to parody or satirise the genre or its conventions, rather to make a genuine piece of work and add comedic elements to it. For example, a mockumentary is a fake documentary with actors and scripts, made to parody a documentary. However, a comedy documentary is a genuine documentary with real people and real situations, that includes comedic elements (Middleton, 2002).

A particular technique associated with a comedy documentary is an idea called “cutting on the absurd” (Middleton, 2002), which the editor abruptly cuts off a shot or scene right after something strange, or absurdly humorous has happened. Instead of extending a scene that could go on for a while and the humour could wear off, cutting it abruptly while it is still humorous and absurd to the audience is a technique used to deliver a punchline without necessarily delivering jokes. We are also “trained to expect” some sort of significance from the final line of a scene, and if that scene ends on something ridiculous or absurd, the comedy “resonates even more strongly” (Middleton, 2002).

In my group’s sketch this week, combined comedy with an action sequence. We filmed a genuine fight scene and added humorous elements to it, such as silly lines and sometimes ridiculous movements. We initially were going to make a comedy documentary but found this a bit difficult to coordinate, as it couldn’t be a scripted mockumentary. We struggled to come up with a legitimate topic to make a short documentary about that had comedic elements, so we decided on a different route which was an action/fight scene. We found this week’s concept to be a bit more challenging, as it could be quite difficult to make this action/fight scene without parodying that genre. We found that the humour had to be more subtle than previous weeks to not compromise the genre hybridisation. A concern I had was that it might not be humorous enough, perhaps we could have added more comedic elements to it. It was difficult to do that though, without making a parody. So, I’m happy with my group and I for challenging ourselves to try something different.

Reference list

Middleton, J. (2002), “Documentary Comedy“, Media International Australia, 104(1), pp. 55–66.

Satire experiment

Hybridisation experiment #2: Satire

Sketch link: https://youtu.be/jm_k4G_eaJc

This week’s focus was on the mode of comedy known as satire. Satire takes a social issue, or topic external from the genre of media, and comments, attacks, or makes fun of it. It is often confused with parody, also a mode of comedy. However, parody pokes fun at the genre (for example, a dramatic news segment) whereas satire targets the issue within the content (such as, making fun of a sensationalised portrayal of drugs in schools). Caterson (2005) quotes Frye (1957) in his book Anatomy of Criticism: “to attack anything, writer and audience must agree on its undesirability”. Regarding satire, this means that in order for the joke to land, the creators and consumers must both be in agreeance that the topic being attacked is bad, ridiculous, or similar.

In class, we watched three examples of satirical content, including Chris Morris’ Brass Eye. This is a satirical fake news show which pokes fun at sensationalised current affairs and news programs and the content they deliver Meikle (2012). We watched an episode that ‘reported’ on the rise of drugs and drug culture in Britain. They conducted fake interviews, fake segments, and other common conventions of a news program to expose the ridiculous nature of their sensationalism, which often blows the issues out of proportion. They also tricked celebrities and politicians into saying ridiculous things to make fun of public figures who will say anything to appear righteous.

In our sketch this week, Bobby, Trang, and I decided to make a satire of a wealthy YouTube couples’ house tour, a satire that targets rich influencers and celebrities who act as if they’re lower class or that their luxury lifestyle is normal. We decided to portray our main characters as delusional influencers who give their followers a house tour of their luxurious house, while constantly complaining how they are trying to save money. Our group agreed that often wealthy celebrities or social media influencers try to present themselves as ‘normal’, everyday people, without acknowledging their privilege, and we wanted to expose this through our satirical sketch. We use the common conventions associated with a YouTube vlog, while exaggerating the characters to make fun of delusional influencer culture.

 

Reference list

Caterson, S. (2005), “A Preposterous Life“, Griffith Review, 8 (June 2005), pp. 186–192.

Frye N (1957) Anatomy of Criticism, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Meikle, G. (2012), “‘Find Out Exactly What to Think—Next!’: Chris Morris, Brass Eye, and Journalistic Authority“, Popular Communication, 10(1–2), pp. 14–26.

 

 

Parody experiment

Hybridisation experiment #1: Parody

This week we focused on parody as a mode of comedy. Parody in comedy refers to imitating a piece of work in a humorous way, when the original work wasn’t supposed to be funny (Toplyn, 2014). Parodies can make fun of a certain genre, by exaggerating its common conventions, or poking fun at storylines and/or performances. Parodies don’t adhere to one specific form of media; they can be a documentary, music video, sketch, short film, etc. They are a mode of comedy, which means they exist in all types of media. They also don’t necessarily have to be comic, they can be making a statement about a certain topic, though we most commonly associate them with humour.

Toplyn (2014) reveals steps to making a successful parody. Firstly, you must choose something that most people have seen, so the audience is familiar with the common conventions and characteristics of the genre. They must also have an emotional reaction to it, meaning the original content is created to make the views feel certain emotions or have certain beliefs. Toplyn shares an example of a commercial; commercials are supposed to persuade audiences to feel like they need or desperately want the product they are selling, something the audience will understand. Next, Toplyn reveals you should familiarise yourself with the “stylistic elements” of the work you are parodying. You should know and understand the characteristics of the work such as its tone, visuals, pace of editing, music, structure, length, etc, so you know how to replicate these with humour.

This week Anna and I decided to create a parody of a Netflix nature documentary, such as those by David Attenborough which focus on specific animals or parts of nature. We decided to make a parody of this by using a boy as the ‘species’ we were observing. We used common conventions of a nature documentary, such as observing the animal’s food, habitat, communication, and daily tasks, and used stereotypes of boys to match these. For example, the ‘animal’s’ food was a box of Shapes, his habitat is a messy room, and his daily tasks include video games. We used a voice-over that commentates on the action on-screen, using serious and formal language that mimic a true documentary. The camera work is hand-held, and the lighting and colours are naturalistic, which mimics an observatory documentary, which nature ones commonly are. We wanted to use a real camera instead of a phone to film, unfortunately the camera I chose wasn’t the best for videoing which is why the footage isn’t super clear. Next time I’ll choose a camera more suited to filming.

 

Reference list

Toplyn, J. (2014), “Parody Sketches” in Comedy Writing for Late-Night TV, New York: Twenty Lane Media, pp. 239–261.

 

Experiment 3

Week 3

This week, we looked at the idea of the comic frame. In general communication theories, a frame refers to “symbolic structures” that are used to create meaning in a certain situation. They are social or “contextual cues” that assist in interpreting a message in its correct context, (Voth, 2014). These frames help us know how to interpret a situation. Therefore, we interpret certain situations as humorous because we see them through a comic frame. Other theories that we have explored so far this semester, such as the incongruity and benign violation theories are successful because they rely on the comic frame to help the audience to understand the humorous context. For example, the incongruity theory uses the comic frame to set up a situation for the surprise to be considered abnormal and amusing. Moreover, in the benign violation theory, the audience interprets the violation as benign because the comic frame is set up for the situation to be relatively safe or not serious (Voth, 2014).

Furthermore, we also discussed story sketches and watched examples of these such as Saturday Night Liveand The Dana Carvey Show type skits, and various sitcoms. Joe Toplyn, a writer who wrote sketches for late night talks shows, writes in his book Comedy Writing for Late-Night TV (2014), how to generate a sketch using the proper conventions of the comic frame. He reveals the comic character should have two or three exaggerated traits and they must have a goal that they want to achieve in the duration of the skit. Next someone, or something must oppose the comic character; this can even be as simple as social norms, making the character look ridiculous. The character should take several steps to get what they want, including having them do something extreme. In the end, the character should either achieve or not achieve their goal, with a final twist to end on a humorous note (Toplyn, 2014).

In my sketch, I tried to follow this ‘recipe’ for a sketch by Toplyn. My comic character, the cashier, tries to get the customer to donate to their very specific charity by bargaining and pressuring them. They even announce to the entire store that the customer is essentially a terrible person, trying to shame her into donating. In the end, the customer agrees to give $3, but the cashier wants them to give $4, implying that the situation is about to start all over again, which is another technique given by Toplyn.

References

Toplyn, J. (2014), “Story Sketches” in Comedy Writing for Late-Night TV, New York: Twenty Lane Media, pp. 221–238

Voth, B. (2014), “Comic Frame” in The Encyclopedia of Humor Studies, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, pp. 148–150.

Music: ‘Epic’ by Bensound.com

Experiment 2

Week 2

This week we explored two main concepts: benign violation and silent comedy. Benign violation refers to potential threats to human wellbeing, but safe enough to not cause serious harm. Warren and McGraw (2015) These can include very simplistic ideas like tickling or sarcasm, but can also expand to actual threats to wellbeing, like slapstick or other violence (as long as the indented party is not seriously harmed). Warren and McGraw (2015) explain that the theory has three different elements to be successful: 1) A violation has occurred. 2) The circumstance is benign. 3) Both of which must occur simultaneously. This means the violation must be deemed as “OK, safe, or acceptable” in order to produce humour. There are certain cues that make violations considered benign enough to be humorous, like a “playful motivation”, a circumstance that is not taken seriously, a safe environment, or an absurd situation. The benign violation theory must be timed and executed correctly otherwise the audience may be “offended or disturbed” at the violation if they do not deem it to be benign (Warren and McGraw, 2015).

Silent comedy, or visual comedy, refers to the idea of not using dialogue to deliver the joke, rather relying on the visual elements to convey comedy. We watched various clips, including one of Buster Keaton’s films The High Sign. This was from 1921 during the silent era of film which used visuals to convey humour. Through his performance and the ridiculous slapstick situations, this film produced a lot of laughs in the class despite having no dialogue (aside from the occasional title card). Some visual elements can be produced by technical camera work and editing, timing, performance, props, slow-motion, slapstick, and more (White and Mundy, 2012). We also watched the first episode of Mr Bean, which relies on facial expressions and body movement/language to tell the jokes.

In my sketch #2, I explored the idea of using common horror/thriller film conventions, then releasing the tension with a visual joke. In my sketch, a girl is home alone and hears knocking on her bedroom door. The checks the door twice, with quick cut-away shots of the door and zooms in on the handle. She slowly opens it, where there is nothing there, but quickly turns out to reveal a toy cow in her room. Combined with the tense and spooky sound effects, I attempted to use visuals in this ridiculous situation to convey comedy.

References

Warren, C. & McGraw, A.P. (2015), “Benign Violation Theory” in Attardo, S. (ed), Encyclopedia of Humor Studies, Los Angeles: SAGE Reference.

Mundy, J. & White, G. (2012), “Silent Film Comedy” in Laughing Matters: Understanding Film, Television and Radio Comedy, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 23–44.

Sound effects:

‘Knocking On Door’, ‘Human Heartbeat’, ‘Evil Laugh Cackle’, ‘Creepy Background’, all accessed from SoundBible.com.