It is also too easy to believe that critical analyses and deep insights are reserved for serious films such as Pan's Labyrinth and heavy texts akin to the works of Plato. However, the superficial simplicity of comedy is what lends it to being a potentially great analytical breakdown of a subject at hand. For example, you can see South Park solely as a crude and dumb form of entertainment, or you can choose to see it as a satire where the jokes are used to subtly convey an alternative meaning - namely, the criticism of an event or social issue.
How many times have you heard people say or seen memes that read along the lines of, "I learn more from The Colbert Report than from watching actual news"?
 |
| ...And he knows it. |
Julie Borowski, a policy analyst, has risen to celebritarianism because of her YouTube videos where she talks about political issues and libertarianism in a silly manner, which attracts and retains viewers.
Just as fiction as a genre can be separated into even further categories, so can comedy. I've already mentioned satire, but there is also slapstick, physical comedy, shock factor, and a bunch more. (Remembering the different types of comedy is not made easier from the fact that there are usually multiple names for each kind.)
Comedy can be made even more complex (and therefore, hopefully, more funny) by blending different types into a single joke or a series of jokes. In the above scene from Friends, Ross helps Rachel with putting on her eyeshadow. There is the physical comedy of him licking the first brush (and immediately reacting to the taste), poking Rachel's eyelid, and smearing too much shadow onto the lid. The awkward tension between the two characters could also be seen as comedic as is Ross' cover-up of putting on too much makeup (by saying she doesn't wear enough). However, it may be a bit of a stretch to say that this scene reflects the ignorance and inferiority females face by men in our society. You could argue that, but if that is a theme the writers of the show tried to convey, they did not do a good job of relaying the message. If too many people have to suspend certain lines of belief in order to support a possible conclusion, the writer/performer did a bad job.
The idea for this topic came from discussing reactions about The Interview. (As of writing this, I have not viewed the film). On the Students For Liberty Blog, Ty Hicks wrote, "I recognize that satire and humor can be positive forces for social change on important issues. Often times, such methods are the best ways to communicate messages that otherwise would be left on the fringe."
Whether or not the screenwriters for this particular movie succeeded in using comedy in order to analyze the situation in North Korea is up for debate. A downside to satire and some other forms of comedy is that it can pass over the heads of some, if not most, of the audience. The key is to make the message(s) subtle without making it too much so and being too difficult to comprehend. The audience should not have to stretch too far to be on par with the writers/performers.
A problem I have had with what people have said concerning this film is that, somehow, in general, every joke has a meaning and that all comedy is meant to share a deeper message. Sure, that may be the end goal of a lot of films, television shows, standup comedians, etc., but that is placing comedy on too high of a pedestal. This is coming from a person who believes that comedy is under-appreciated but meaningful. (My blog is called La Commedia Politica for crying out loud.) These people make comedy into a kind of utopian solution for the pursuit of knowledge, which it isn't. The least common denominator for all comedy, I think, is to make people laugh and/or ultimately feel better. (In the case of self-deprecating humor or being the target of a joke, the ratio of good feelings-to-bad [whether it be the person targeted or when compared to quantity] should be greater in order to be successful.)
To make a point, look at shock factor. Very rarely, on its own, can it be used to invoke insight. Shock factor is meant to degrade a group, a person, etc. for laughs. It is used for short-term reasons, and can range from sudden nudity to unexpected expletives to a racist joke. I would not be surprised if it was the most controversial kind of humor. If used to push a message, it appeals to the people who already agree with the message. It may have the unintended effect of swaying people away from the message it supports, no matter how sensible the actual message is.
Excusing comedy because "it's comedy" is a poor excuse when looking at it on a grand scale. Studies have shown that comedy can be used to uphold bigoted prejudices, whether a person tells a lot of racist jokes because he/she views people of color as inferior (knowingly or not) or attempts to disguise offensive content as "humor."
Blackface in minstrelsy portrayed black people as a kind of stock character - lazy and dim-witted. While there are certainly other stock characters throughout history that have existed with these same traits, it should be a no-brainer to point out that this stock character was meant to represent the black person. Academically speaking, minstrelsy was a kind of performance that required an enormous amount of talent and has influenced a variety of theatrical forms. However, that does not excuse it from the impact it had on shaping how black people were viewed. I'm not saying that blackface was the cause of racism, but it perpetuated it by reinforcing racist notions.
All in all, comedy is a complicated matter that should not be dealt with in black-and-white - it is not all good, neither is it all bad. By writing this, I am not advocating for political correctness. For the most part, I believe that political correctness, especially in comedy, is unnecessary. I am not known for having an all-encompassing sense of humor. Whether I make a snarky video of myself making fun of principled nonvoters or pretend to believe that ageism is a bigger issue than misogyny, I am bound to offend someone. Nevertheless, I choose to stick to most of my jokes because they are a form of self-expression and I believe that the positive feelings from the recipients are greater than the negative ones. Even if I or someone else chooses to tell an "offensive" joke or if you choose to watch a comedic film where racial stereotypes are played upon, while we don't necessarily need refrain from doing so, we should at least be aware of the impact that our actions may have.
"Just because humor exists about a subject does not mean that it is inherently good for change on the real issue." ~Ty Hicks
