Tuesday, March 25, 2014
How Does Satire Work?
Based on the episode of South Park you watched and the two pieces by Sherman Alexie you read, describe how a satirical approach to a topic works. You should try to identify and describe the type of humor and the type of criticism within the episode. What you should be doing is trying to dissect the episode a bit in order to understand its structure, its style and its purpose as best you can.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSatire avoids straightforwardness. While it seeks to poke fun at, criticize, or comment on cultural, historical, or phenomenons of any kind with clarity, a good satire builds up to the climax or main idea with roundabout layers. The South Park episode put together many different jokes within jokes: while commenting on Comedy Central’s unnecessary censorship of Muhammed, it also successfully commented on the idea of terrorism itself, including Osama bin Laden. Sherman Alexie’s works are less blanketed with subtle, twisted jokes. Instead, he addresses his readers, ironically, as if he were the E.B. White to American Indian novels. He gives very specific, detailed instructions and examples— all of which are part of one big satire.
ReplyDeleteSatire also includes a lot of irony. In the South Park episode, Bush was giving a press conference regarding family guy showing Muhammed. However, the press were criticizing Bush for allowing family guy to show the image because it is protected under the first amendment, even though that same right is given to the press. This shows the irony of allowing something's to be considered okay and others to be considered taboo. I also agree with Cindy that Sherman Alexis is much more straightforward than South Park since he describes the Indians in his works the same stereotypes that native Americans are depicted in pop culture just to show how idiotic it is to generalize an entire people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA satirical approach to a topic can be layered and complex, but it can also be more blunt and candid. South Park, in this episode, took the more complicated route in layering joke after joke across several different criticisms, like Cindy said. I personally preferred the humor of Sherman Alexie's pieces because it jumped off the page in a more realistic and more pungent way. Alexie did not attempt to hide his own stereotyping nor was he afraid to bring some heavy stuff to the table.
ReplyDeleteExaggeration certainly plays a role in satire as the author/speaker comments on extreme characteristics or situations. Such dramatics are useful in making one's point, and, particularly in the case of South Park, the ridiculousness surely brings out the laughs (i.e. the manatees, the violence and intelligence of these fourth graders).
I definitely agree that the type of humor used in the episode draws us in to the subject being commented on. Yes, it makes us laugh—that whole manatee ordeal was outrageously hilarious. But at the same time, we’re supposed to question why it is that we’re laughing in the first place. Why are the writers of Family Guy being made fun of? And why with manatees? Well, the satirical situation we find ourselves watching sheds a new light on the work of the real-life writers. Maybe their ideas have nothing to do with creativity and everything to do with mundane randomness—so easy an animal could do it. As for the Sherman Alexie pieces, there’s more irony than humor embedded in the satire to illustrate how the ‘white culture’ selfishly over-romanticizes Native American culture. And from that irony, we see just how ridiculous those misinformed assumptions truly are.
ReplyDeleteSatire uses humor and irony to criticize and ridicule certain topics, such as historical events or cultural beliefs. The point of satire is to identify the flaws of its target, and to make fun of the flaws and exploit them in order to bring them to attention. Used correctly, satire is not only funny, but also serves as an effective tool for criticism. In the episode of South Park, the writers used satire to criticize the studios of comedy central for not letting them show Muhammad. Through the use of a multi layered joke involving Family Guy showing Muhammad and the use of a harmless terrorist attack, South Park uses satire to effectively ridicule the studio for limiting what it can and can't do. I agree with Luis and Cindy in that Sherman Alexis is much more direct in his use of satire. He comes right out and says what he wants to be said, opposed to the way South Park uses multi layered jokes to get its point across. Although done differently, I think that the satire used in both cases is effective.
ReplyDeleteVerbal irony is frequently used in satire. Sherman Alexie criticizes the stereotypes in America by making it seems as if there are rules about how Native Americans should be portrayed, saying “must” and “should,” which really serves to point out the fact that there are no rules. There are no laws dictating how they should be represented, and yet all Native American characters are all exactly the same, which makes no sense. It makes us question why we follow these rules that don’t exist. In South Park, the show creates this huge drama around whether the Family Guy episode will be aired or not. There’s an authorization code, a big red button, a countdown, and so forth. This huge drama serves to point out the opposite: that there is no need for such drama. There’s no need for Comedy Central to take the appearance of Mohammed so seriously. After all, in the end, the retaliation by the terrorists, which they all feared, was nothing more than a stupid poop-joke video about Americans.
ReplyDeleteAngela
Perhaps it's only because I hadn't seen South Park before, but the episode we watched this week really impressed me with how spot-on it was about the art of satire. There were two points that most stuck out to me in terms of defining the guidelines of satirical humor. The first point was about how despicable a show is when it tries incessantly to force messages onto its viewers. The second was the recurring theme of the episode: in satire, either everything is acceptable to ridicule or nothing is. Both of those points are an important reflection on what makes satire effective. Sherman Alexie's style leans into a shade of satirical humor that is less about making people laugh and more about drawing a strong point without too bitter of an aftertaste. With strong commentary on the heavy facts of something like the history of whites and Native Americans, his writing does more to provoke reflection than to laugh heartily at the pure irony of life.
ReplyDeleteTrey Stone and Matt Parker(the producers) draw criticism and laughter in equal measure with the manner in which they employ their humor. The subject matter of the episode is initially trivialized and offhandedly presented to the audience. However, the topic grows to become serious with the snippets of references to the constitution. Suddenly the viewer is forced to examine his/her understanding of history and the social boundaries that exist if they do at all. Sherman Alexie equally draws the readers in with humor and uses the trivial jump off of the drum. As his works progresses though ,there is a fundamental shift from sheer satire and the issue morphs into a serious examination of how the white man exists together or in exclusion with the Indian. In both works it becomes clear that the humor simply serves to embellish the message buried beneath and it is only after laughing it off that we pause to consider freedom of speech and what it means and examining the confluence of culture.The joke is pretty serious. Haha
ReplyDeleteClearly satire is one of the essential tools that writers and comedians alike use to draw attention to events that range from more trivial affairs like censorship of animated sitcoms to heavier ones such as Alexie’s treatment of stereotypes about Native Americans. As we see in Alexie’s “White Men Can’t Drum,” one vital feature of satire as a method of criticism is its ability to simultaneously lighten the mood, entertain, and further the author’s point; in this case, Alexie’s “friend,” John, lends him a way to demonstrate the types of sweeping generalities that white men make about Native Americans, as well as give Alexie a sort of credibility by demonstrating his familiarity with white men (however real that friendship may be). At the same time, this instance of satire ironically shows how Alexie himself draws generalizations about white men by essentially boiling down, in a way, all white men to a single, typical John. From a broader perspective, Alexie weaves humor and satire into his piece to successfully advance his goal to clarify the reality of Native American culture and elicit laughs from readers.
ReplyDeleteSouth Park, on the other hand, uses a more slapstick, absurdist style of satire and tends more toward the “jokes for the sake of jokes/laughs” side of the balance between purposeful criticism and pure humor. Despite South Park’s lowbrow sense of humor, this particular episode showed how satire can be used in a deeply layered way, as Cindy and Leigh alluded to. Besides what’s already been said about the humor used in South Park as a way to criticize Comedy Central’s unnecessary censorship and poke fun at the writers of Family Guy, it’s also instructive to acknowledge that we more often watch shows like South Park without as much of a critical eye toward the objects of criticism and tend to watch for the sake of entertainment (which is perfectly legitimate). As Spencer points out, however, it’s also often enlightening to deconstruct these kinds of ridiculous jokes to see what commentary the writers of these shows are trying to make about current events and pop culture. The whole terrorist retaliation bit at the end of the episode wasn't only intended to provoke us to think, “What the hell did I just watch?” but to again knock Comedy Central for blowing the notion of censorship and the consequences of showing Muhammad on TV out of proportions.
Satire is a tool with many faces. It is a device that can make a statement on politics, the media, other people, a global phenomenon, and much more. It is the use of mocking exaggerations and humor to expose the absurdity of a particular detail. In a single satirically soaked episode of South Park, the writers drew attention to the chaos and stupidity of the media, the president’s lack of control in almost all situations, the populations censorship reaction, the writers of family guy, the quality of the jokes in family guy, and a language barrier opens a capacity for manipulation of viewers reading subtitles. Although some use satire to ridicule a wide range of situations, works by author Sherman Alexie exhibit satire focused on the treatment of modern day Native Americans and the meek attempts by the white man to understand and adopt part of Native American culture. Satire is a very powerful tool that uses humor to nudge new thinking and popular movements.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that exaggeration plays a role in effectiveness of satire. In fact, I would take it a step further and say that's it's a truly essential element. In the case of South Park, for example, the show's criticisms are almost all made clear by way of exaggeration. The press isn't just hypocritical or incompetent--they don't know what the First Amendment is. The writers of Family Guy aren't merely stupid or poor writers--they're manatees. In order to make their scathing critiques clear, the writers of the show liberally blow things up to unrealistic proportions; in doing so, they not only effectively demonstrate their arguments but add a healthy dose of humor to the mix as well. Sherman Alexie, too, exaggerates, though he veers less into the absurd. In describing lecture topics at men's movement events he was asked to attend, he claims he expected to find one titled "Finding the Inner Hunter When Shopping at the Local Supermarket." Here, he exaggerates (though, to be honest, his title isn't much more ridiculous than the real ones) in order to expose the lectures as what they are: shallow, romanticized affairs meant to boost egos rather than provide any meaningful ideas or insight. Perhaps we respond so well to such exaggeration because it simply makes the flaws in whatever's being criticized more visible. By scaling them up, they're easier to see. After all, these problems do exist right in front of our eyes; they're just in need of a spotlight, and satire does the job.
ReplyDeleteCalvin
It is easier to look objectively at social issues within the frame of a fictional cartoon. Within that frame, topics are stripped down to their most basic components allowing the viewer to see the absurdities in their full glory. In the South Park episode, the plot is nearly identical to the real-world issue that it was commenting on, but the humor allows the reader to fall out of reality and into the South Park world. Even From there, the viewer can form new opinions. Towards the end of the episode, Stan claims that if the network cancels the show because it is deemed offensive, it will set a precedent of censorship that will allow anyone who is offended by a joke to cancel a show. Stan's statement is very true especially when viewed in a frame that is free of the moral dilemma of balancing the expression of free speech and respect of people's religious beliefs. At the end of the episode, that frame is removed when the plot directly calls out Comedy Central. The naked truths that were discussed in the plot can now be explored in the real world discussion of the issue of censorship. Ultimately, satire gets to the heart of an issue without having to contend with other factors that can cloud a discussion.
ReplyDeleteMichael B.