(link to) Group Agreement

This week (7) was the first of many weeks focused on our major media artefact (assignment 4). We started on Monday briefly going over the task and formed groups of 4-5/6, going around the room to clarify our own wants in relation to the task to form likeminded groups. For Wednesday’s class, we focused on goals, expectations, communications, and roles and responsibilities.

One member of the group I volunteered to join was to create a narrative around one central character, like Mr. Bean. I liked this idea as I think it will allow us to infuse the artefact with a plethora of plot devices aside from comedy. We quickly assured we were all in an Instagram group chat in order to communicate throughout the next several weeks. Additionally, we bounced off each other’s ideas as a baseline concept. A concept that was developed further in Wednesday’s class. Also in Wednesday’s class, we focused on curating a group agreement (see above) outlining goals, expectations, communication protocols, and roles and responsibilities (which were vaguely decided upon). In which agreement, we thought about what we are aiming to achieve and how to achieve it, including the use of RMIT equipment, playing into strengths and weaknesses, and of course, respect.

As for the concept itself, we all agreed on having a central character that was out of touch with reality, enabling us to comment or critique a social issue or topic (satire). The idea landed on a 17 again or Suddenly 30-esque style. We talked about potentially transporting someone from the 1920s (as dictated by costuming and personality) into the 21st century, which would be achieved through a shift from black and white/sepia to colour (like The Wizard of Oz [with potential to allude to the film]). Furthermore, we discussed how we wanted to be less overtly comedic by including more dramatic themes or plot points. Ultimately however, this idea isn’t finalised and may change in future.

We didn’t have much time to talk about the project aside from the broader premise and were merely throwing ideas around. However, I would personally like to make something that’s (almost too) lively. I think, assuming we go from black and white/sepia to colour, this dichotomy may help us make the artefact more surreal (dream-like–again Wizard of Oz-like), and ultimately advance the satirical approach we’re currently aiming for.

Style/mood inspiration (Wizard of Oz [1939], The Good Place [2016-2020], Hairspray [2007])

Assignment 2: (links are to reflective blogposts which have each sketch linked)

Sketch 1

Sketch 2

Sketch 3

YouTube link: Secrets of the Old Melbourne Gail

For the final week of assignment two, our focus was genre hybridisation. This meant creating a sketch within a genre (drama, horror, thriller, action, etc.) and introducing elements of comedy (incongruity, relief, etc.) in order to produce a new genre. As according to John Mundy and Glyn White, ‘comedy has been particularly adept at exploiting the potential of crossing borders between and within genres, in creating hybrid forms which combine comedy with other dramatic or generic elements’ (2012:132). Essentially, comedy as a mode or form is very versatile and is seen within many other genres. For instance, elements of comedy in horror (horror-comedy) acts to dehumanise and detract from the realism that may be found (Wells 2000). Overall, the intention of the sketch this week was to integrate comedy into an already established genre. Our group chose to do a documentary style comedy. Our group also grew as the week went due to outside variables but was still able to work efficiently. Documentary was the main case study for genre hybridisation in class and we watched a part of American Movie (1999) to exhibit a hybridisation. The goal in creating a hybridisation was to create a documentary about the “Secrets of the Old Melbourne Gail”. It was essentially a true crime/thriller documentary which relied on its arrogant (and uninformed) host and editing to infuse comedy. This rode a fine line between hybridisation and parody however, we weren’t actually mocking documentary as a genre but becoming one with it in a way. Our caricatures of documentarians were arrogant and ignorant, seeking to find “secrets” (truths) where there were no secrets to be found; think Ancient Aliens (2009-) which take their seek-age of the truth very seriously but ultimately spread disinformation. We made up conspiracies about “bodies being buried” in seemingly random places within the grounds and with the use of editing was able to show how our characters are simply out to make a buck and spin a narrative. There is a sense of self-awareness to the final product though I think this allows the documentary to seem more “produced” or simulated in a way like how YouTubers tend to overreact and dramatise things to create content. I do think while we rode the line between parody and hybridisation, we were able to combine dramatic and generic elements of drama (with talking heads, montage, etc.) with elements of comedy (incongruity, absurdity, framing, etc.) as per Mundy and White’s reading.

Mundy, J. & White, G. (2012), “Comedy and Genre Boundaries.” in Laughing Matters: Understanding Film, Television and Radio Comedy, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 130–148.

Wells P (2000) The Horror Genre: From Beelzebub to Blair Witch, Wallflower, London.

YouTube link: Crazy Questions w/ Camila – Hybridisation Experiment #2: Satire

This week in class we discussed the second comedy mode: satire. As discussed in class, unlike parody which focuses on subverting conventions of genre, satire focuses on what’s beyond genre. That is, satire aims to ridicule, question, or comment on an idea or norm. For instance, in class, we viewed three examples that satirised the mainstream perception of drugs and their users. Brass Eye utilised A-Current-Affair-like tropes in order to ridicule politicians and news for their response to increased drug-use in the UK, while a sketch from the Chappelle Show highlighted the over-the-top depiction of drug users and addicts, as seen in schools. Moreover, Corey White’s Roadmap to Paradise satirised the conventional perception of drug users and addicts through anecdotal evidence and other research. The point being to show that satire has a certain target or object of satire through which to comment on an idea or norm. Furthermore, there are four elements of satire as outlined by James E. Caron: ‘play, judgement, aggression, [and] laughter’ (2020:172). Our group decided to satirise price gouging through a gameshow format. It involved a Coles CEO (named after the actual CEO) answering a series of simple questions, before the interviewer, Camila got more and more aggressive and interrogative. The point was to show the extent to which price gouging has affected families; there was once a time where you could ‘feed your family for under $10’ (Coles n.d.). Last week coming off of both the strike and Easter break, we had plenty of time to think about, formulate, and produce a parody. This week however, we only had a couple of days to do this, mostly due to our group’s schedules which gave us only a couple hours to work on the artefact together, and with limited resources. This meant our production value was not as good as desired but may have worked better in satirising the gameshow format. Ultimately the poor production quality in contrast to the well-produced intro and use of music (done by another group member) actually seemed to have made the video more satirical. The laughter element is somewhat scarce, but I think in this case, the lack of funny made it funnier and aided in the satire. Overall, considering the lack of time and production value, the video came together well and ridicules Coles’ (and Woolworths’) price gouging.

Caron, J.E. (2020), “Satire and the problem of comic laughter”, Comedy Studies, 11(2), pp. 171–182.

YouTube link: 73 Q’S With Chet Bordeaux

This week, week four, was our first hybridisation exercise and our first of many media artefacts to be complete in a group. And, despite not being in class due to the strike and Easter break, I’d say it went pretty well all things considered. The first hybridisation exercise focused on parody. According to Joe Toplyn, “a parody is considered to be a funny imitation of an artistic work that typically wasn’t intended to be funny”. Our parody was based on Vogue magazine’s ’73 questions with’ series on YouTube, in which they interview a plethora of celebrities, the likes of Nicki Minaj, Zac Efron, and of course, James Corden, with 73 questions. These videos–while clearly scripted–are intended to feel improvised. Zendaya’s “73 Qs” for instance begins with her picking lemons which segways us into the interrogation. The questions are often vague, allowing for short and sweet answers, but sometimes are more thought-provoking. In Jennifer Lawrence’s 73 questions she is asked, “when was the last time that you played mini golf?” (as they were at a mini golf course), and just a few questions later, was asked, “what is your favourite movie?” Needless to say, the questions vary in simplicity and relevance, but the format does ultimately work. We came to this idea, not only because it’s very parodiable, but also because it would require minimal editing. Typically, these interviews are done in one shot and aside from some colour grading and a title card, don’t require really any editing (seemingly anyway). We then talked about different names for our celebrity, coming to Chet Bordeaux, a trashy, self-centred actor. We also threw in some simple, vague questions, alongside more specific (potentially invasive) questions, including ones suggesting some controversy around our character. Meanwhile the answers, which including name-dropping Troye Sivan and Dannii Minogue, really allowed the character to become very trashy and douchey, aided by Lewis’ performance of the character. Overall, considering the interruptions in class as well as it being the mid-semester break, I think we articulated the point of the exercise brilliantly, and were able to make a pretty good parody, (in 3 minutes exactly btw).

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