SKETCH 5

This week the comedy mode discussed was satire. As noted last week, parody and satire are often mistaken for one another or the same, despite their differences. While parody focuses on conventions, satire focuses on commentary – “where parody, as we have seen, draws on – and highlights aesthetic conventions, satire draws on – and highlights social ones”. (Neale & Krutnik, 1990). Satire aims to make commentary on a social issue, theme or event. This was seen in the show we watched in class, The Brass Eye. The Brass Eye utilises satirical comedy to poke fun at fake, or exaggerated news. It highlights that news agencies can pass fearmongering as legit and accurate information – “such a system of textual authority, built around claims to define reality by defining what counts as true and important, is a clear target for satire—understood here as art on the attack, to include both its aesthetic and its critical dimensions.” (Meikle, 2012). While the show utilises conventions of a typical news program, the real comedy is in the commentary on social issues (such as drugs in the episode in class). “The most effective satire blurs irretrievably the line between fact and fiction.” (Caterson, 2005).

The sketch created this week by our group, ‘Causing Cancer’ follows a news report on microwave radiation – we were all greatly inspired by Brass Eye. Our sketch is satirical because, much like drugs in Brass Eye, microwave radiation is an issue. Despite this, news agencies love to point the finger at what product will be ‘causing you cancer’, and greatly exaggerate the claim. The social issue being the fearmongering created by news channels for views and engagement on their shows. ‘Causing Cancer’ closes off the episode by introducing next week’s subject, how elevators cause you cancer. The sketch aims to blur the “line between fact and fiction.” (Caterson, 2005).

In this sketch, I learned about comedy’s relationship with non-fiction/informational programming. Specifically, the way they are constructed. The sounds, graphics, interviews and locations are all vital conventions to informational programming like news reports. Finding a way to make these conventions a part of our sketch enhanced the audience’s understanding of the style of satirical comedy we were creating.

 

REFERENCES

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

Caterson, S. (2005), “A Preposterous LifeLinks to an external site.“, Griffith Review, 8 (June 2005), pp. 186–192.

Neale, S. & Krutnik, F. (1990), “Definitions, genres, and forms” in Popular Film and Television Comedy. London: Routledge, pp. 10–25.

SKETCH 4

This week we discussed the mode, parody. A parody is “considered to be a funny imitation of an artistic work that typically wasn’t intended to be funny.” (Toplyn, 2014). When we were talking about parodies, many shows and skits I had seen over time came to mind (like many SNL skits), it seemed to me to be a common and well-known mode. Parody, unlike theories such as the comic frame discussed in week 3, “has its own techniques and methods, but no particular form or structure.” (Neale & Krutnik, 1990). This means that, creatively, parodies don’t need to follow a particular formula – this mode felt more open to originality and creativity when thinking about what to create for our sketches. Parody focuses on “aesthetic conventions” (Neale & Krutnik, 1990), such as making fun of nature documentaries and infomercials. What makes a parody funny, to my understanding, is the audience’s knowledge of the subject being parodied. The “audience needs to be already familiar with what you’re parodying if they’re going to get your jokes.” (Toplyn, 2014). A parody of a true crime documentary may not be understood to be funny by those who have not seen a stereotypical true crime documentary. It is important to parodies to have the audience’s own context and understanding of the original content in order to find the most humour out of the sketch/show.
The media artefact created this week parodied a Zoom-style group presentation. After COVID, it is pretty easy to assume the audience is no stranger to this type of scenario, proving Toplyn’s argument of audience familiarity. As well as the viewers being university students & tutors, we are all accustomed to an awkward group assignment. Our sketch parodies the misunderstanding of a project by a group member, who must present their argument regardless. The sketch aesthetically replicates the conventions of a Zoom call (Neale & Krutnik, 1990), with random face zooms and awkward silences.
Because we didn’t parody a specific genre, this week’s sketch didn’t have much crossover with other forms/genres. Despite this, in the reading this week, it was discussed how parodies and satire comedies are often mistaken for one another (Neale & Krutnik, 1990).

REFERENCES:
Neale, S. & Krutnik, F. (1990), “Definitions, genres, and forms” in Popular Film and Television Comedy. London: Routledge, pp. 10–25.
Toplyn, J. (2014), “Parody SketchesLinks to an external site. to an external site.” in Comedy Writing for Late-Night TV, New York: Twenty Lane Media, pp. 239–261.

WEEK 1 BLOG POST

WEEK 2 BLOG POST

WEEK 3 BLOG POST

Theories of humour: The Comic Frame / Comedy Mechanics / Situation and Story

SKETCH 3

What is your understanding of the comic form and theories of humour explored this week, with reference to the reading(s), in-class discussion, and/or your own research?

The comedy theories/forms covered this week in week 3 were the comic frame, story sketches and humour techniques. From the reading ‘Comic Frame’ this week, I understand comic frame as humour that emerges from contextual elements, “the contextual cues leading the interpretation of a message is centrally important to how we make symbolic sense.” (Voth, B. 2014). This allows audiences to understand when things are meant to be funny which includes things such as jokes and puns (verbal), expressions (non-verbal) and absurd scenarios (incongruous juxtapositions). Comic frame seems to be the framework of what would make a media artefact funny to its audience. The other reading from the week, Toplyn, J. (2014), “Story Sketches”, helped me to understand how to construct a story sketch through his suggested formula in 9 steps.

This reading helped me to create the basis of my 3^rd sketch.

How does your media artefact (sketch) respond to these constraints and concepts?

By following Toplyn, J. (2014),’s Story Sketches nine steps I was able to construct a sketch:

Think of a comic character with two or three exaggerated traits

CHARACTER 1: FRANTIC & UNORGANISED

Make your comic character want something

TO GET TO WORK ON TIME

Have someone oppose your comic character

A ROBBER

Have your comic character take several different steps to get what they want, each step more radical than the last

PLANNING ANOTHER DAY FOR THE ROBBERY TO OCCUR SO SHE’S NOT LATE TO WORK

Raise the stakes

THE ROBBER WANTS THE BAG NOW

Have your comic character do something really extreme

REFUSE TO GIVE THE ROBBER HER BAG

Have your comic character not get (or get) what they want

A NEW ARRANGED ROBBERY DATE

Throw in a final twist

IT’S A DATE DATE?

Add the dialogue

tick

(From week 2 onwards:) How have you incorporated peer feedback into your approach to further develop or improve your practice?

I tried to go a lot further out of my comfort zone on this one. I’ve never been good at writing scripts, particularly comedy (beginner) so this was a new one for me. This sketch was more creative and resourceful than my other sketches, aiming to improve as much as I can every week with the help of peer feedback and personal goals.

 

REFERENCES:

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

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

Berger, A.A. (2023), “The Semiotics of Humour: Universal Humour Techniques in Comedy WritingLinks to an external site.” in Audissino, E. & Wennekes, E. (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Music in Comedy Cinema, Cham: Springer International, pp. 25–42.

Theories of humour: Benign Violation / Relief / Silent Comedy

SKETCH 2

What is your understanding of the comic form and theories of humour explored this week, with reference to the reading(s), in-class discussion, and/or your own research?

As discussed in class and throughout the required readings, my understanding of relief comedy and benign violation relates to a “physical phenomenon of laughter.” (Morreall, J. (2009). Relief comedy, to my understanding, is described as a release of tension. When there is pent-up excitement or energy in the nerves, people will laugh to release it. Relief comedy is therapeutic and calming- it describes laughter as a form of medicine – relieving tension of suppressed thoughts and feelings. Benign violation rather, is “a psychological state characterized by the positive emotion of amusement and the tendency to laugh.” (Warren, C. & McGraw, A.P. (2015). The benign violation theory is a theory that helps us to understand why particular situations or jokes are perceived as ‘funny’. With both violation and benignity elements, comedy allows people to steer through social boundaries, challenge norms and find humour in harmless but ‘wrong’ scenarios. In class, we watched an episode of Mr Bean after discussing ‘silent comedies’, which were particularly popular in the early ages of film/TV. This viewing in class helped shape my Week 2 sketch.

How does your media artefact (sketch) respond to these constraints and concepts?

My week 2 media sketch responds to the benign violation theory in the silent comedy genre. Sitting at my desk, I begin to feel hot, I walk to my air conditioner remote on the bed-side table and turn it on, as I walk back to my seat, I am suddenly in a complete outfit transformation as if the season in my room had changed. The punchline is harmless, yet challenges ‘right’ social norms.

Framing was an important part of this sketch in making it funny. I ensured I had lots of small cuts, to both ensure the punchline was funny and unsuspecting as well as making it seem repetitive – a technique often used in silent comedies.

(From week 2 onwards:) How have you incorporated peer feedback into your approach to further develop or improve your practice?

My feedback for this week from a friend in class was to get a little more creative with my sketches and seem more open to trying more different things – getting out of my comfort zone. Although it was silent comedy this week, they suggested trying dialogue to enhance the sketches’ humour.

 

REFERENCES:

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

Palmer, J. (1988/2018), “The Logic of the AbsurdLinks to an external site.” in Marx, N. & Sienkiewicz, M. (eds), The Comedy Studies Reader. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 51–54.

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

Theories of humour: The Comic Event / Surprise / Incongruity

 

 SKETCH 1

What is your understanding of the comic form and theories of humour explored this week, with reference to the reading(s), in-class discussion, and/or your own research?

My understanding of the comic form and theories of humour explored this week (The Comic Event / Surprise / Incongruity) was largely influenced by the reading by Audissino, E. & Wennekes, E. (eds), ‘The Palgrave Handbook of Music in Comedy Cinema’. The reading introduced that defining comedy as a genre or mode was complicated – that theories on what makes us laugh or why we laugh have been debated over time. The main theories – superiority theories, incongruity theories, release theories and humour and ethics I found made the basis of understanding what makes comedy, comedic. Surprise and incongruity were the theories focused on in Week 1. Incongruity/surprise comedy includes elements that are juxtaposed or unsuspected to create humour. Absurdity and surprise are big elements of this comedic style, “the detection of some disruption of our expectations.” (Audissino, E. & Wennekes, E. 2023). The unsuspecting element confuses audiences and can create humour in the process. Knowing this, I tried to push these elements into my Week 1 sketch.

How does your media artefact (sketch) respond to these constraints and concepts?

My media sketch responds to the incongruity concept by adding this element of surprise. It is hard to predict what is happening next in my sketch, what is the present delivered at the door? Why are there Michael Jackson coasters? Is there anything in this package?

The element of surprise and absurdity was the key factor in the sketch, which I believe responded to the constraints of the comedic theories. I “create a deviation of norms, conventions, anticipations, predictions and common logic.” (Audissino, E. & Wennekes, E. 2023).

(From week 2 onwards:) How have you incorporated peer feedback into your approach to further develop or improve your practice?

I found this style particularly hard to do, I wasn’t sure what to come up with a ‘surprise’ element. I didn’t receive any feedback (Week 1) but I don’t think this sketch is particularly funny, I hope to improve on generating ideas that I’m capable of doing on my own. I am definitely not used to making comedy sketches.

 

REFERENCES:

Simons, S. (2023), “Six Small Essays About Comedy”, Humorism, <https://www.humorism.xyz/six-small-essays-about-comedy/Links to an external site.>.

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.