As promised, the following posts describe my experiences during Tuesday’s events at the Conference On World Affairs. And away we go!
“Cringe Humor,” my first session of the day, examined the role of comedy in today’s turbulent social times where political correctness can be an oppressive influence. Ironically enough, the first few moments of the session were incredibly awkward, as each panelist looked at one another and non-verbally argued with their eyes to figure out who would start the individual presentations. Finally, director Tom Shadyac (“The Nutty Professor,” “Patch Adams,” “Bruce Almighty”) broke the ice by asking, “Would anyone like to open with a fart?” The laughter that filled the room got the ball rolling and it didn’t stop.
Julia Sweeney, best known from “Saturday Night Live,” opened the discussion by acknowledging “Pat” and other uncomfortable characters and skits. While she still finds plenty of cringe humor funny, she no longer feels drawn to create that kind of material. Sweeney later confessed that she wouldn’t mind seeing more “gross-out” humor for older adults, since a lot of what passes for comedy skews toward younger demographics. She believes that the shared trials of aging would bring this type of comedy with a different level of meaning to a new audience.
Robert George, associate editorial page editor for the New York Post, used his background in stand-up comedy to discuss the role of race and politics in who decides what is and isn’t funny. He believes that pushing the envelope is an important responsibility, because “humor is a release” that we as people need. George even noted that humor -- cringe or otherwise -- has the potential to reduce the racism and sexism we still see around the world even today. By infusing comedy with a genuine message, we can appeal to the universal aspects of life that everyone finds funny on some level and ultimately bring people closer together through laughter.
Tina Packer, considered to be among the nation’s leading experts on theater arts, lent an academic perspective. She traced cringe humor all the way back to Greco-Roman theater, where props were commonly used in obscene ways to get a reaction from the audience. She also observed that the works of Shakespeare often feature bawdy sexual references and dark humor about violence that could make some nervous if they really paid attention to his use of language. The factors present in Shakespeare’s day, largely characterized by social unrest, famine, and plagues, were practically begging for comic relief and deeper reflection, something he did in turns with his comedies and tragedies.
Shadyac surprised me with his more philosophical approach to comedy. “I believe laughter is holy,” he stated, before discussing how the term “cringe humor” can be self-defeating. He cited the definition of cringe as “drawing back with submission or fear,” something that one doesn’t typically associate with laughter. In Shadyac’s view, to cringe at something makes us forget to be free, simple, and even child-like in how we see the world, and the reaction of just laughing about things is built into us as humans on a subconscious level.
As the Q&A portion started, the audience went right for the hard-hitting implications of what the panelists had just discussed. The first question asked was, “How far is too far, or is there a too far?” All of the panelists were in agreement about a formula among those who work with humor: tragedy plus time equals comedy, and the more time that passes, the funnier something can be. As evidenced by catastrophic events like 9/11, every person has a different standard of how much time is appropriate. The challenge then becomes reading one’s audience and gauging whether or not they’re ready.
Another question was asked about shows like “South Park” and “Family Guy” that claim they are justified in making fun of people and issues so long as they make fun of everyone and everything else. George thinks that “Family Guy” is more politically correct than they’re willing to let on, because the format of the show relies on non-sequitur asides and quick-cuts to other topics. This style often distracts from their point and inadvertently ends up covering their tracks. Meanwhile, he finds “South Park” more pointed and successful because they engage in smarter satire built around singular messages.
The longest debate, which involved the power of words, was something that I heard ad nauseum in college as a communication major. However, the fresh insights and examples here kept me engaged in the topic. Sweeney insisted, “There are no bad words,” only words to which we apply bad meanings and intentions, since words are inherently nothing but letters and sounds. Both George and Packer agreed, adding that the history of words must also be taken into consideration when using them.
Shadyac was the only one who disagreed, arguing that words do have power by citing an experiment conducted by a Japanese scientist to study how water droplets formed ice crystals when frozen with different types of words on paper. According to the scientist’s results, the positive words produced more fully-formed and elaborate crystal designs than the negative words. What an interesting way to visualize how we affect the world around us!
The other panelists remained skeptical, particularly when it came to instances of hypocrisy in acknowledging that power. Sweeney told a fitting story about working on a skit for “Saturday Night Live” involving a flirtatious priest during confession. The network’s standards and practices department told them a line in the script about how much the priest enjoyed Oreos had to be rewritten because he liked to “lick out” the cream center, and they didn’t feel it was proper for a priest to say that. When Sweeney asked for suggestions, the network actually told them it was permissible to say “eat out” the cream center, which just goes to show that no one is ever truly aware of the power of the words that they find “appropriate.”
Near the end of the session, Shadyac remarked, “The only sin of art is dullness,” and I’m tempted to agree with him. The only way something as good as comedy could ever truly be bad is if it failed to provoke some kind of reaction in its audience. And if it takes a few dirty jokes to keep an audience around long enough to make them think about what you’re *really* trying to say, then so be it! I admire all of the panelists for their candor, and I sincerely hope that people walked away from this session willing to lighten up a bit. I know I did!
No comments:
Post a Comment