Oscar Allen

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.

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.

YouTube link: Beyond a Joke, Beyond a Genre | Sketch #3

Week three’s focus was on the comic frame, comedy mechanics, and situation and story. More specifically, we focused on writing a ‘story sketch’. According to Joe Toplyn – a TV writer, having worked on Late Show with David Letterman among others – in his book, ‘Comedy writing for late-night tv: how to write monologue jokes, desk pieces, [etc.]’, “In a Story Sketch, the jokes are woven into a story which is performed by the host and other performers. Usually the story has the host playing straight man in a scene where a comic character disrupts the show for some reason” (2014:237). Furthermore, he lays out the “nine steps to creating a story sketch” (2014:229). These steps produce a formulaic approach to writing a story sketch for TV. Those steps are: “1. Think of a comic character with two or three exaggerated traits. […] 2. Make your comic character want something. […] 3. Have someone, probably the host, oppose your comic character. […] 4. Have your comic character take several different steps to get what he wants, each step more radical than the last. […] 5. Raise the stakes. […] 6. Have your comic character do something really extreme. […] 7. Have your comic character not get (or get) what he wants. […] 8. Throw in a final twist. […] 9. Add the dialogue.” (2014:229-236).

This formula is what I utilised within my story sketch. Essentially one character needs attention and will lie to outrageous lengths to get it, while constantly being opposed by the other character who simply doesn’t care about their escapades. Ultimately the comic character doesn’t get what he wants as their opposing character simply doesn’t care, and himself wants to get from point A to point B. I did however neglect the 8^th step. I also don’t think this is the best piece of media in terms of technicality either. My original idea, as I thought about editing would’ve taken far too much time, so I opted to take a hit to the formality of the video to get it out on time.

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

YouTube link: Beyond a Joke, Beyond a Genre | Sketch #2

This week’s focus was relief and benign violation. Benign violation, as described by Caleb Warren and A. Peter McGraw in their paper, ‘Benign Violation Theory’, suggests that this humour-inducing phenomenon occurs when: “(1) a circumstance is appraised as a violation, (2) the circumstance is appraised as benign, and (3) both appraisals occur simultaneously” (2015:1). While I had a horror-comedy sketch in mind following this idea, I simply ran out of time and couldn’t find the punchline. Instead, I focused on relief. According to the book, ‘No Laughing Matter: The Traditional Rejection of Humour and Traditional Theories of Humour’, author John Morreal outlines the ‘Relief Theory’. The relief theory, as per Morreal’s outline, ‘arose alongside the Incongruity Theory [and] its focus was on the physical phenomenon of laughter, especially its relation to the nervous system’ (2011:15). Essentially, to me, the relief theory refers to the idea that laughter is triggered (much like last week’s theory) by the quashing of expectations. Except, unlike the incongruity theory, comedy that utilises suspense to create nervousness as opposed to an expectation (right?).

Regardless, my goal was to apply the relief theory to this week’s sketch. As part of our classes this week, we watched a few silent-comedy films/clips, namely those of Buster Keaton. There was one scene in which Keaton steps just over a banana peel. I, wrongly, thought he would slip on the banana peel, because funny. He did not. In my sketch, I attempted to recreate this nervousness and sense of relief. And, while I don’t think my execution was particularly expert (it wasn’t funny), I do think the idea is there. Especially as a more modern interpretation of an old gag. I ultimately think I could’ve done better this week, had I found the funny in my first idea, or simply executed my video better.

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

Morreall, J. (2009), “No Laughing Matter: The Traditional Rejection of Humor and Traditional Theories of Humor” in Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–26.

Assignment 1: (links are to reflective blogposts which have each sketch linked)

Sketch #1

Sketch #2

Sketch #3

YouTube link: Beyond a Joke, Beyond a Genre | Sketch #1

This week, our focus in class was surprise and incongruity. The goal was to generate a comic event within a sketch through these elements. Audissino (2023:6) states that, in incongruous comedy, “Humour emerges from the introduction in some situation of elements that create a deviation from norms, conventions, anticipations, predictions, common logic; the clash between such odd elements and normality triggers an impression of incongruity”. By which, they suggest that the humour founded in incongruent comedy is created through the element of surprise, and divergence of expectations. Fabricating this divergence was my goal for the first sketch.

My sketch essentially relied on the surprise being comedic. My initial thoughts were to create something in the format of a TikTok, namely utilising the built-in green screen effect. This would involve going back and forth between two or three or more characters. I went through a few ideas, and tried imagining them in terms of camera angles, shots, and performance, but all lacked the element of surprise, relying instead on characterisation. Another problem was figuring out the length as some ideas would’ve turned out to be 90 seconds, the others, 10. I then came to an idea similar to that in Tim Burton’s 1988 film, Beetlejuice, wherein Barbara and Adam are at one point enter a waiting room in hell. I liked this idea and focused on creating the element of surprise. That surprise would be encountering Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs in this ‘waiting room’ of sorts. Much like the “Car Robbery” sketch we saw in class this week from ABC, the scene would build up to the surprise, suspense and incongruity working hand in hand to enhance the comedy. While not fully thought-out, choppily edited (due to unforeseen time issues), and with a quite frankly bad production value, I think all of these things actually aided in creating surprise and incongruity: “the clash between such odd elements and normality triggers an impression of incongruity” (Audissino 2023:6).

Ultimately, I thought, considering some minor setbacks due to real life time schedules, this first sketch came out pretty good. It’s build up and suspense followed by the actual surprise feels funny (subjectively).

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.