Comedy – Laughter and Fish and Chips

Hey guys, it’s Jillian here! As per the request of Jeremy, I wanted to give my two cents on the three shows we watched last class. As I remember, Hancock was pretty funny, albeit slightly obnoxious because of his continual commentary. However, this seems a break from past satire, where the commentary was much more subtle. Maybe this was the whole purpose of Hancock, to be obviously satirical to get to a point? Porridge and Fawlty Towers were both more subtle, which is why I think I liked them better! In all three, the topic of class and the importance of social status was a major facet of the commentary, which is really interesting because it seemed much more of a bigger deal to the British than Americans. Even though we obviously also distinguish class and the importance of status in the US, I found it particularly interesting that even the specific accents were so important to British status.

Not the Nine O’Clock News

I am going to do my research project on the show, “Not the Nine O’Clock News” (1979-1981), because of its similarity to American shows “The Colbert Report,” “The Conan O’Brien Show” and “The Daily Show” for relaying world news and events through comedy and satire. I also think it would be very interesting to compare the execution (how/what was actually said) of the satirical political and social commentary for the two different countries.

From an article on the BBC website explaining Not the Nine O’Clock News:

“Not The Nine O’Clock News was the first major programme showcasing the talent of the so-called ‘alternative’ comedy performers. Unlike the Bernard Mannings of the world, the performers didn’t rely on boob gags and mother in law jokes to get them through the day. They dealt in observational comedy and were about to put their observations not just of life, but of the events of the world and the country to work, in the first major topical comedy programme since the 1960s”

The whole article can be found at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/notthenineoclock/

Cast:

Rowan Atkinson: performer
Griff Rhys Jones: performer
Chris Langham: performer
Mel Smith: performer
Pamela Stephenson: performer

Blackadder goes forth

The satirical comedic genius that is blackadder.

I have chosen to concentrate on Blackadder (the fourth series) because it compacts so much satire into short scenes and conversations between the characters and at the same time represents the different types of people and the British soldiers’ attitudes towards WWI. This final series also embodies the anti-German and mainly anti-war sentiments felt by the Allies.

Rowan Atkinson plays Captain Blackadder, a self centered, sarcastic (but still funny) captain whose pompous demeanor mainly takes root in the prowess of the British Empire at the time. Hugh Laurie (also known as ‘House’ to those of you who have good taste in television) plays Lieutenant George, an upper class ‘Edwardian twit’, and Tony Robinson plays the unrealistically stupid ( for lack of a more appropriate term) Private Baldrick.

All of these characters have obvious references. For example, Captain Blackadder’s egocentricity is perhaps an exaggerated depiction of the national pride felt Great Britain felt coming into the war due to their then-vast empire, strong Naval force etc. Private Baldrick’s silly, confused and uninformed questions on the other hand, clearly refer to how many soldiers were inadequately prepared for war, mainly due to the conscription bill introduced in Britain in 1916. These can be seen in this short clip.

And don’t worry about the Captain’s apparently poor fashion taste, its actually a stunt he’s pulling to get kicked out of the army for being mad. This is yet another example of satire, criticizing the extent to which soldiers would go to stop fighting in the war.

"hmm?"

Beyond The Fringe

I’ve decided that I want to focus my research on the show Beyond The Fringe.

Upon Googling this show, the first thing that appears is the following video:

Beyond The Fringe on Oxford Philosophy

This video clearly satirizes those who call themselves “philosophers” and the way in which they dig deeply into whatever they do and ask how and why things are the way they are. When they attempt to reason why philosophy is important in everyday life, he uses an example of someone in an argument at a shop saying “What do you mean yes?” as if there really is another meaning to the simple word of affirmation, yes.

I can appreciate this type of satire because these actors are intelligent enough to make arguments and statements that are not just absurd but also the kinds of things that those who truly believe themselves to be brilliant philosophers would probably say.

Highlights from Satire Comments

I think dystopic scenarios are also valid.

they can mock things that are going on in society and not get in trouble for it.

Satire often will tell the truth and sometimes will even deal with very important issues.

I believe this is vital to satirical presentation because it presents ideas in forms only visible to the discerning eye, and therefore avoids falling victim to being passed off as ‘just another critical assessment’.

sometimes I think that today in our society, we get caught up in the entertainment factor, the sparkle, the flash, and sometimes, the obscenity that is part of satire and forget to find the little truths behind the curtain.

Satire offers the audience a chance to see another side of an event, speech, or idea, opening perspectives and giving them a chance to laugh at the serious stuff.

Satire

I think we should begin with a discussion of satire. Some definitions from different sources would be good. Let’s post them and discuss them. I have always thought of satire in relation to comedy, but Jillian rightly threw that idea away by bringing up 1984 as a satire. So let’s see where we go from here.

See the whole document on Blackboard, but Hughet who wrote a book about the Roman satirist Juvenal has these criteria for satire:1. Does it tell the truth?

Does it tell the truth?
Does it deal with important subjects?
Is it effective?