The studio prompt for Beyond a Joke, Beyond a Genre was “How can we creatively think of comedy as a mode within (and beyond) a genre, form, and media?”. To answer this question, we worked week-by-week to explore the nuanced range of comedy through theories of humour and comedy modes. Individually and in small groups we produced media artefacts utilising these theories and modes to exemplify the diverse nature of comedy. As for my individual work I find that comedy is varied and personal. I especially enjoyed the first two weeks wherein we explored incongruity and relief/benign violation. This is because I feel as these particular artefacts highlight the simplicity of comedy as a genre–comedy within a genre. This is as opposed to the latter (smaller) group work, which explored parody, satire, and hybridisation, and ultimately the broad nature of comedy beyond its own genre. In combining the elements explored in weeks 1-6, I think Rogue became a well-rounded example of comedy as both a standalone and transcending genre. Through its use of incongruity, benign violation, parody, satire, and hybridisation, I think the project illustrates the studio prompt and key concerns of the anatomy of comedy. Aside from that I hope the artefact is funny to at least some extent.

As I said in my reflective essay, I would focus on amplifying its use of the theories of humour. I think a lot of the comedy in our artefact is subtle and may only be seen by an audience who has engaged with this studio. I don’t think the elements of comedy’s subtly is a bad thing for a broader audience but could have helped them understand certain creative choices.

When looking at other studio members’ work, I think the diverse nature of comedy is only strengthened. Looking at the film Trip Up, for instance, it’s very obvious from the beginning that the film is absurd. Their use of incongruity and benign violation is apparent and does nothing but add to the film’s humour. The film’s editing enforces this, as it quickly becomes clear that the story is evoked by paranoia. From a search of someone who isn’t missing to the murder of a delivery driver to a random beach pirate, Trip Up applies several modes of comedy with which the creators highlight the nuances within comedy as a gerne. Similarly, Milk Run runs on absurdity which alternatively kicks off a pretty grim story. For me, anyway, Milk Run, while absurd and funny is a very dark in nature. It explores the simplicity if not cultural shock of an interstate university student and does so with the backing of a self-aware sense of absurdity. I think the modes of comedy are subtle here and ultimately allows for a darker tone to be set while not sending people into existential crisis. Overall, these two short films highlight both comedy as a genre and comedy beyond its self-contained genre. Essentially, with an undercurrent of absurdity, incongruity, and benign violation, the films explore different themes, one more comedy-driven, the other more dramatic and cerebral, producing examples of comedy within and beyond its own genre.

In terms of another studio, I found A Case of Scrambled Eggs from the ‘Reimagining Crime Club’ of particular intrigued. The ‘Reimagining Crime Club’ studio asked students, “How can the Crawfords Collection at the AFI Research Collection be creatively reimagined for contemporary audiences?”. This question, alongside the studio’s concerns are answered and illustrated by A Case of Scrambled Eggs. Not only is the title engaging, so is the content of the media artefact. It reads very satirical of the true crime genre through its use of sound and cinematography and therein lies the studio prompt. I for one, am more likely to follow a comedy as opposed to really any other genre, so the creators’ didactic retelling and unironic reenactments of the events, and use of editing makes the artefact digestible and engaging. Ultimately, I think their artefact acknowledges and answers the studio prompt and its key concerns.

INDEX

Beyond a Joke, Beyond a Genre | Major Media Artefact | Blog Post #1

Beyond a Joke, Beyond a Genre | Major Media Artefact | Blog Post #2

Beyond a Joke, Beyond a Genre | Major Media Artefact | Blog Post #3

Beyond a Joke, Beyond a Genre | Major Media Artefact | Blog Post #4

Beyond a Joke, Beyond a Genre | Reflective Essay + Video

Reflective Essay

How can we creatively think of comedy as a mode within (and beyond) genre, form, and media? Well, one thing that I for one have learned in this studio is that comedy is versatile and dynamic, having the ability to transcend genres and infiltrate other forms and media. I suppose my hope for our major media artefact, Rogue, is that others find it funny–as, despite not having a role in the editing process, I think the others in the group did some fantastic work with the editing. I think it highlights how comedy, as a genre, can be hybridised with others to form more nuanced genres, ‘creating hybrid forms which combine comedy with other dramatic or generic elements’ (Mundy and White 2012:132). In this instance, the dramatic element is borrowed from the action-having spy movie such as Spy (2015) starring Jason Statham and Melissa McCarthy among others. The comedy, meanwhile, comes through a few elements. Incongruity, ‘the clash between such odd elements and normality (Audissino 2023:6), serves as one form. Since our character is from the past, what is normal for us isn’t normal for her which clash in order to create incongruity. Another is parody, which Joe Toplyn suggests ‘is considered to be a funny imitation of an artistic work that typically wasn’t intended to be funny’ (2014:239). Again, the spy film is typically very serious. Jason Statham’s filmography elucidates this. We also made parodies of 21^st-century human tropes including our reliance on technology. Overall, I think our artefact addresses the key concerns of the studio; the comedy is a stand-alone product of our artefact that is enhanced by hybridisation and other elements of comedy.

If I were to continue or add onto our artefact, I would focus on amplifying the theories of humour within it. While our artefact did include incongruity, I feel like the incongruous aspect of the film could be enhanced by introducing more theories of humour. Relief, for example, involves some sort of tension to be released (Audissino 2023), which I think, while subtly present, could’ve been emphasised to add some more moments of drama. Benign violation, the idea that comedy can be produced by harmless subversions of norms (Audissino 2023), could have been more present in order to create more of a Mr. Bean archetype. I wouldn’t change the campy/b-film vibe we have in the final film, as I feel like these films have an inherent comedic nature.

In terms of the collaborative nature of this studio, I feel oddly neutral about it. Of course, I preferred working alone, not only because there is more control involved, but also because I can work on my time and look ahead to schedule a time that works for me to dedicate to working on a media artefact. In the first three weeks of this studio, I often utilised my mostly empty Fridays to filming, editing, and uploading my media artefacts. I would attend class Mondays and Wednesdays to gather ideas and write something that I thought would fulfill the requirements of the task. I would then null it over to consolidate my idea, which I would then dedicate Friday to film. Some weeks I had less time than others and so even if I wanted to, I simply couldn’t make a grander or technically advanced artefact. Despite this, I think even my underthought artefacts fit the requirements of the given week. Moving into group work was actually easier than I’d thought. I actually didn’t mind working with mostly different people each week. Working alongside others allowed for a diverse range of perspectives and ideas, but I feel that overall, we were mostly on the same page and if not went with the flow. I also feel like these weeks were the best in terms of media production; the groups weren’t too big nor small, and neither were the artefacts themselves. Moving into the group for the major media artefact was also rather easy. I liked the idea of the “fish out of water” character and believe we achieved it in a creative way within and beyond the comedy genre. The brainstorming and ideas phase was particularly fun as it involved simply bouncing off others’ ideas, interests, and wants. I do feel however that some roles were breached slightly leaving some group members to do more work than others, which I think could’ve been less apparent with better communication and actually remaining true to the designated roles. It simply felt like there were too many cooks in the kitchen at times which ultimately hindered the group’s ability to actually get things done without getting jaded. The hardest part really, was scheduling. Especially in the latter half of the semester, I for one, had far less time to actually engage fully with certain things, both due to having other assignments as well as a life to attend to; hence my struggle to make it to a few shoots. Overall, while I certainly preferred working alone, the group work was nowhere near awful, so I feel a bit on the fence in terms of this studio’s collaborative nature.

Conclusively, the studio has broadened my understanding of comedy, revealing its versatility as a mode and form. Our artefact, Rogue, showcases how comedic elements like incongruity and parody can enhance and transform traditional genres like spy films, and, while collaboration presented challenges, it also enriched the creative process, leading to a more nuanced final product. If we had continued working on the film, I’d focus on refining the theories of humour within our artefact that could amplify its impact.

References

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.

Audissino, E. (2023), “From Dionysia to Hollywood: An Introduction to Comedy’s Long (and Bumpy) Road” in Audissino, E. & Wennekes, E. (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Music in Comedy Cinema, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–23.

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

Week 10 went pretty well, and we got a lot done. Monday’s class was dedicated to our Work-in-Progress presentations in class. I think my group did well, taking each member of the panel’s feedback and working about how we could add to, fix, or remove certain things. For instance, there was discussion on how we were going to depict the ‘60s in our artefact. We decided to make this element very ‘theatre-y’ which leaned into the comedy more. We didn’t show up to class on Wednesday as we were out filming our first scene. I wasn’t there for the entire shoot due to having another class but did show up a couple hours later and took control of the clapperboard (very fun). Meanwhile, two members of the group were directing as per their role and responsibility, while another two were on camera. We all shared responsibility when setting up cameras, lighting, and audio. We also did some impromptu location scouting. I did have to leave a little bit earlier to catch my train, but I ultimately think this whole process ran as smoothly as possible all things considered. Some things have also come up within my own schedule and won’t be able to join my group for filming on Sunday. We’ve also been talking about making some changes in order to make the filming go even smoother. Overall, week 10 was very productive, and may give us enough time to finish at least a rough-cut by the end of week 11/start of week 12.

This week (last week) was focused on script writing and WIP assignment working. This reflection post is late as I was busy over the weekend with Mother’s Day.

I was absent Monday due to illness but worked from home. I worked on writing a “vomit draft”, which was more vomit than draft. In my writing (and I think in the group members’) it became quite apparent that we had an understanding of our start and end points narrative-wise. The start was a first introduction to our central character and some genre conventions. My (secondary) “BOSS” character was quite straightforward, a get-the-job-done kind of boss. Meanwhile my central character, “AGENT WHYTE” was a very self-reliant and organised spy. Other group members wrote a determined Boss, but a more childish or innocent Agent Whyte; a sort of spin on the “rookie cop saves the day!” trope.

The end, meanwhile, was a confrontation of sorts. Another member of the group wrote scene reminiscent of a breakup scene in romance-comedies. Adopting this approach, I shifted through some movies and got to “She’s the Man” with Channing Tatum and Amanda Bynes and utilised the broad structure of a confrontation scene as well as some lines. Upon further review, both online and on Wednesday, we came to more of a consensus and combined elements of each other’s work. This was the collaborative side to this work. Utilising Google Docs’ comment/suggestion feature we were able to infuse the script with more comedy. It was also clear that others had done some work in developing the middle of the narrative, which is in a way, a “road trip” sequence where our central character can experience this new world she’s been put in (i.e. some 60 years in the future).

As for our work in progress assignment, Bradley clarified some questions we had as a group. Though I didn’t actually add much apart from some quotes that could’ve been used to strengthen the presentation. Essentially, we’re using mostly visual comedy and twisting tropes through camera movements, techniques, and editing in order to convey comedy. Additionally, we’re using incongruity and relief to parody and slightly satirise genre cliches to create a genre hybridisation. We may use dolly zoom/Vertigo effect techniques or a western stand-off framing to produce these tropes and bend genre conventions.

Ultimately, I thought it was a rather productive week and brought us much closer to being prepared to film in the next couple weeks.

Week 8 was both productive and not at the same time. We began to work on our brainstorm, outline, and vomit draft for our major media artefact. Within the brainstorming phase on Monday, the group listed several possible characteristics of and developed our main character. At first, we were thinking of more of a Mr. Bean-like character who was transported to an unknown world (time). Though, this week we developed into a sci-fi, Umbrella-Academy-like spy character named Agent Whyte. We made strides towards the shape of our narrative as well. It became a story of ultimate betrayal of drama, action, and science fiction; more in the vein of a genre-hybridisation.

These ideas were expanded on, on Wednesday. Due to transport issues, I was unable to attend this class, which put our communication skills to the test (especially considering my limited internet at the time), but we were able to work to the best of our ability, all things considered. Through communications, the group made a more ‘official’ brainstorm and outline our storyline with simple scene headings. We even began working on vomit drafts individually just to see what ideas come out of it. Said drafts were quite different, but we thought it was necessary to have several interpretations to go off. I have also been working on another assignment for another class, so haven’t actually added to my own vomit draft since Wednesday. Apart from in-class work, we’ve been working independently to further develop our ideas. One member of the group has even suggested a potential filming location for that sci-fi-y look.

Overall, while this week did not go exactly as planned for me anyway, the group chugged along and continued developing the concept, character, and storyline. Additionally, we worked on vomit drafts and let the ideas flow. I feel that this puts us in a good position to work on a first draft or at least a few vomit drafts in week 9 in preparation for our Work in Progress presentations in week 10.

(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.