A while ago, Crazy Luigi and I have gone into a lengthy discussion about the state of parodies today, and how it correlates with the rise of viral videos. At the same time, HerrVarden and I were talking about the excess of poorly-executed shock humor, and how its main fault lies in being shocking for the sake of shocking. Upon combining these two discussions, we have composed a three-part project article on modern humor.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Crazy Luigi
In the world of YouTube, we have many different vehicles to try our tastes on. In addition to YouTube Poops and other forms of media like official songs and movies, we also have content generated by the user itself to try and get the user feel whatever they want to feel. Some videos could make a person agree on a certain point, while others could invoke a different reaction, such as sadness or anger. However, the one type of reaction that many try to create on YouTube is comedy, and while some of them have been successful in doing so, there are particular types of comedy that only a select few have created it with success. Some of those types of videos may have involved an animal like a panda bear or achipmunk gopher squirrel prairie dog, but most of them involve us humans doing something that would probably occur in everyday life. However, there’s a part of us that sometimes questions why some videos like “Charlie Bit My Finger,” “Chocolate Rain,” “David After Dentist,” and “GINGERS DO HAVE SOULS!!” end up with more success than other videos that may be just as deserving of their successes, if not a lot more then that?
Many of their videos were intended to be of serious effect. In fact, when looking at Chris Crocker’s “Leave Britney Alone” against some of his older videos beforehand, his video about Britney Spears was the only one that had him taking his topic seriously, while the other videos he had made were in a not as serious (and even flamboyant) mood. The Angry German Kid (Der Echte Gangster as he used to be known on German video websites) was probably the only one that had initially made the video as a comedic one, and even that was due to him creating other videos that weren't quite as serious. However, when he had finally created a video that held a serious aura of damage (combined with the kid speaking in a language most viewers won’t really understand), it ended up creating a video that made for exploitation on many different areas. Hell, even PewDiePie ended up getting as famous as he was because his videos involving video games like Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Happy Wheels, and many more that I can't talk about tend to hold some feelings of surprise that most YouTubers could relate to.
However, not everybody who does get successful on YouTube do it with the intent on initially being serious. There are users like Fred and the Annoying Orange that end up being as noted as they are because their intent is all about comedy. Those users are the ones that do hold the technology needed to use video cameras and angles to their advantage, and even use (likely) expensive video editing software like Adobe Premiere Pro or Sony Vegas. That’s not to say all YouTubers who have good equipment are equal to those guys; the Angry Video Game Nerd (formerly the Angry Nintendo Nerd) admitted his initial reviews of Castlevania 2: Simon’s Quest and Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde became final projects in his college, and he ended up turning videos like those into serious reviews that can still make people laugh to this day. Hell, even the Nostalgia Critic went from expressing sadness over the Chicago Cubs missing the playoffs and over-exaggerated glee for the release of the last Harry Potter book (as well as editing a Duck Dodgers episode to have Darth Vader's voice in it) to holding his own with movie reviews that show why he doesn’t really like a certain film with intent to make the viewer laugh as well. With that said, some users on YouTube that have the technology and smarts to come up with these ideas do end up taking advantage of it, with plenty of them receiving the success that they wanted all along. However, the price of such success can be fleeting in certain cases.
Looking back at the South Park episode “Canada On Strike,” even though there were plenty of viral videos that I knew of that Trey Parker and Matt Stone were making fun of, not every type of video held quite an effect on our memories, such as that guy with the Tron suit and the Afro Ninja guy. That seems to be quite a problem with plenty of popular YouTubers; they tend to get the popularity that they may or may not have deserved, and in a few years’ time, we end up forgetting about them with only a few iotas of our brains reminding us that they even existed in the first place! Look at Fred (again) for example: he ended up using a squeaky high-pitched effect on his voice, which eventually had him become YouTube’s first user to even gain 1,000,000 subscribers. However, even after making three official movies and getting his own TV show, he nowadays seems to be forgotten by the public as someone that was once considered the King of YouTube. In contrast, look at Doug Walker; after getting himself banned on YouTube for a reason that I admittedly don’t know about, he decided to create his own website that started out with just him doing quick 5 second videos on some movies and his own Nostalgia Critic reviews, but later on grew with many different users getting worthwhile gain in the process. Despite having less success in the YouTube world, he ended up growing his website with more ambitious videos to where not only would he be successful (even after going into a brief retirement), but also some of his fellow partners like Linkara and the Cinema Snob would gain said success as well. In a way, looking at these two sides of the coin can show that even though one path may lead to a much more recognizable way into glory (or infamy), the other path may end up leading towards a more stabilized path towards success and glory that could not be had by just following certain trends that are rising in popularity.
DiscoGlacier
Unfortunately, this type of humor serves as a bad influence for film parodies, as it does not translate well between mediums. As film has a much higher barrier of entry than the internet, it is expected that its execution of comedy reflects this: what may be funny performed by Youtube amateurs can come of as juvenile coming from theatrical professionals. With Date Movie - the first film directed by Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg - being released a year about Youtube's foundation, there's a correlation between the style of humor found in viral video and the kind found in the two's works. Much like how a Youtube viewer can surf through dozens of unrelated videos in a single day, the duo sifts through pop culture references that have no relation to one another other than being current. This ultimately comes at the expense of the parody's quality, reducing its standards to the medium it takes inspiration from.
What makes the spontaneous humor of viral video work is Arnheim's definition of authenticity: these moments capture real events, as they happen to real people or things. Such moments are candid, and need not writing or acting (unless the video is scripted); they are humorous primarily for being unusual yet believable occurrences. The camera remains in the periphery, observing as the events unfold on their own. This works the opposite for film, where everything placed in front of the camera is suited solely for the camera. Sets are constructed, lines are scripted, and actors are hired to say these lines, all to provide a pre-conceived image for the camera. This not only applies to comedy, but to every genre in film; the sole exception to this is Direct Cinema, a type of documentary that takes utmost precaution in preventing any interference with their subjects by the filmmakers. Otherwise, the film medium, by its very nature, is an artificial medium unable to capture the authenticity of viral video.
Viral videos can get away with lower quality (or the lack of any), as they are not only produced with less resources and by people with less comedic experience, but audiences can watch these videos for free. Films, on the other hand, are normally produced with budgets in the millions; even Disaster Movie was made with a budget of $20 million. Part of what makes film comedy funny is in how it can uphold the willing suspension of disbelief through adequate costuming, special effects; etc.: one should be convinced that Giselle is really being hit by a car, rather than a dummy look-alike. In addition, because more money is at stake, a greater understanding of comedy is necessary in order to do it justice. Comedy that can be seen on Youtube for free does not cut it when audiences are paying $8-12 a head for film tickets; the kind of talent deserving of the big screen is one which audience must be willing to pay for.
This is what leads into a greater problem with the modern parody: a lack of understanding of what makes comedy effective. Timing is overlooked, as jokes are telegraphed and are carried on too long. Causality is undermined, as slapstick happens with no real consequence; major characters recover from it and continue with the story uninterrupted, whereas bit parts simply disappear after the punchline has passed. Context serves no significance in these films as well, as many of the jokes hardly tie into the main theme of the films (what is a Napoleon Dynamite reference doing in a parody of date movies?). The greatest faults of these films, however, is the belief that the references are the punchline in themselves, when in fact they merely serve as vehicles towards one. The purpose of a parody is to bring to light the peculiar conventions of a work, genre; etc., then play them out in a humorous context. The modern parody only mocks their subjects at the most basic level, foregoing intricate comedy in favor of bare-bones references.
Something is wrong when online comedians can give out a more complex analysis of comedy than major studio films. I have learned a lot about the mechanics of comedy from Douglas Walker, in videos such as why Tom and Jerry succeeds in slapstick humor or why Master of Disguise fails at comedy; the way he critiques and analyzes comedy shows how much more elaborate an art form it is than throwing random things up at the screen hoping the audience would react. Perhaps what this really shows is the internet's potential for not only spontaneous humor, but also professional comedic talent that can far surpass even that of film. Then again, the general objective of film is not necessarily to provide the highest quality of entertainment, but to make the maximum profit possible, and the Seltzerberg duo has been profitable enough to leave a lasting impression on the 2000's image of "parody." Therein lies the peril of parody: the formula of feigned spontaneity simply makes too much money to forego.
HerrVarden
To understand good parody, you must understand good comedy. It's something that can entertain us and make us find the hilarious moments in even the craziest or benign of settings. It's only recently that we have really gotten into the whole "stand-up comedy" routine and seen it's ups and downs. There have been the one-liners and the overly long gags, the silly impressions to the bizarre experiences and many more. All of these acts have cemented comedians' true talent and opened doors to bigger and better projects. Some of them have had massive success while others have been the subject of the problems that modern comedy is facing. Oddly enough, both share at least one certain style of humor among each other. That being dark comedy.
For those of you who are unaware of what this is, dark comedy is basically joking about something that one shouldn't joke about, such as abortion, murder, mutually assured destruction and pedophilia. This is nothing new as in the past there have been jokes that have encompassed this sort of black humor. It was usually done in a more dry tone, as seen by the wit that is Oscar Wilde. Recently though, comedians such as Bill Hicks, George Carlin, Doug Stanhope, Louis C.K., Richard Pryor among many others have used this type of humor, not only to make people laugh at the more solemn subjects but to also pose a thought to them. When dark comedy is used right, it can make people wonder about the gravity of everything that surrounds them to a point of understanding that a greater subtext is underlined in the bit that a comedian does. These bits are usually presented with vile language and turn out to be blunt on what the point of the joke is. A part of what makes this sort of comedy work is by its presentation, which usually consists of shocking the audience either by the subject matter or further delivery of this joke. This is appropriately titled shock humor.
As you would imagine, there are also comedians such as Daniel Tosh and Anthony Jeselnik who don't use it properly. It's not to say that it's the lack of substance in their jokes is the problem; a lot of good comedians (even some of the ones mentioned here) tell good jokes but don't necessarily have any theme or grander purpose to the other than to say something funny. It's rather the actual jokes and the way that they are presented that is the problem. See, both of them seem to use the shock humor to get people to respond to them. In essence, that's what every comedian wants to do, but they simply do it because they want to offend. Both of them present their jokes in the most obnoxious manner. They have off-colored one liners or disgusting comments that some would find as unsettling and off-putting. For others though, their jokes simply come off as trite.
In the time of the internet, the idea of shock humor is nothing particularly surprising. A majority of the in-jokes and general comments that are spewed on to the net are meant to repulse the viewer and some even try to do as much as they can to get you to respond for their own amusement. Those who have delved deeper and spent more time online have grown more immune to that style of humor and it takes a certain way of presenting it to amuse them. Simply going straight for the "Ooh, look at me, I'm offending you" button isn't going to cut it, no matter how repulsive it can be. It has to either be done in a very abstract manner, have some meaning to the joke or simply just be amusing enough that you forget about it's deplorable factor. That's precisely what parodies nowadays seem to forget.
Let's forget that the idea of parody relies on making fun of certain aspects that are present in a genre or film and that current parodies disregard that rule excessively. Let's take away that parodies nowadays are more focused on making terrible pop-culture references that only serve to date them further. They rely on shock humor on the simple basis that it is shocking. It's fowl, wretched, filthy, profane and nothing more. It's simply just there as if that's the only thing that sort of humor needs to be funny. Forget timing, presentation, and any other aspect that could make the joke work, farts are funny on their own. While some of us can't deny that they might be, most of us can agree that it's trashy and dull. Anyone really could make the joke and it does nothing to see it on the big screen in its lack of glory. If anything, it shows that you don't really need to put any effort in making a decent comedy film. Just slap a few crude bits here and there and it'll sell like hotcakes. Nevermind that it's blatantly insulting how low the common denominator has become, it's amusing, am I right? It completely misses the point of parody and instead becomes something that is ripe for mockery, not only of how abysmal it is but how it seems to be okay that you don't need real talent to make it in entertainment. You can be offensive all you want, but that isn't what makes great humor. It's what makes you into a petty troll.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
By succumbing to these pitfalls, parody has worked itself into a rut that can only be escaped with not only awareness, but talent. With the advent of technology, unique challenges have arisen such as the temptation to resort to spontaneous humor as a main source of comedy; others, like using shock value for the sake of shock, have sprouted from much deeper roots. Whether old or new, problems like these are not irreversible, and the parody can reclaim its former glory once again with the mutual agreement of both knowledgeable entertainers and discerning audiences.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Crazy Luigi
In the world of YouTube, we have many different vehicles to try our tastes on. In addition to YouTube Poops and other forms of media like official songs and movies, we also have content generated by the user itself to try and get the user feel whatever they want to feel. Some videos could make a person agree on a certain point, while others could invoke a different reaction, such as sadness or anger. However, the one type of reaction that many try to create on YouTube is comedy, and while some of them have been successful in doing so, there are particular types of comedy that only a select few have created it with success. Some of those types of videos may have involved an animal like a panda bear or a
Many of their videos were intended to be of serious effect. In fact, when looking at Chris Crocker’s “Leave Britney Alone” against some of his older videos beforehand, his video about Britney Spears was the only one that had him taking his topic seriously, while the other videos he had made were in a not as serious (and even flamboyant) mood. The Angry German Kid (Der Echte Gangster as he used to be known on German video websites) was probably the only one that had initially made the video as a comedic one, and even that was due to him creating other videos that weren't quite as serious. However, when he had finally created a video that held a serious aura of damage (combined with the kid speaking in a language most viewers won’t really understand), it ended up creating a video that made for exploitation on many different areas. Hell, even PewDiePie ended up getting as famous as he was because his videos involving video games like Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Happy Wheels, and many more that I can't talk about tend to hold some feelings of surprise that most YouTubers could relate to.
Of course, that doesn't really excuse some of the behaviors that we may find in their videos.
However, not everybody who does get successful on YouTube do it with the intent on initially being serious. There are users like Fred and the Annoying Orange that end up being as noted as they are because their intent is all about comedy. Those users are the ones that do hold the technology needed to use video cameras and angles to their advantage, and even use (likely) expensive video editing software like Adobe Premiere Pro or Sony Vegas. That’s not to say all YouTubers who have good equipment are equal to those guys; the Angry Video Game Nerd (formerly the Angry Nintendo Nerd) admitted his initial reviews of Castlevania 2: Simon’s Quest and Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde became final projects in his college, and he ended up turning videos like those into serious reviews that can still make people laugh to this day. Hell, even the Nostalgia Critic went from expressing sadness over the Chicago Cubs missing the playoffs and over-exaggerated glee for the release of the last Harry Potter book (as well as editing a Duck Dodgers episode to have Darth Vader's voice in it) to holding his own with movie reviews that show why he doesn’t really like a certain film with intent to make the viewer laugh as well. With that said, some users on YouTube that have the technology and smarts to come up with these ideas do end up taking advantage of it, with plenty of them receiving the success that they wanted all along. However, the price of such success can be fleeting in certain cases.
Looking back at the South Park episode “Canada On Strike,” even though there were plenty of viral videos that I knew of that Trey Parker and Matt Stone were making fun of, not every type of video held quite an effect on our memories, such as that guy with the Tron suit and the Afro Ninja guy. That seems to be quite a problem with plenty of popular YouTubers; they tend to get the popularity that they may or may not have deserved, and in a few years’ time, we end up forgetting about them with only a few iotas of our brains reminding us that they even existed in the first place! Look at Fred (again) for example: he ended up using a squeaky high-pitched effect on his voice, which eventually had him become YouTube’s first user to even gain 1,000,000 subscribers. However, even after making three official movies and getting his own TV show, he nowadays seems to be forgotten by the public as someone that was once considered the King of YouTube. In contrast, look at Doug Walker; after getting himself banned on YouTube for a reason that I admittedly don’t know about, he decided to create his own website that started out with just him doing quick 5 second videos on some movies and his own Nostalgia Critic reviews, but later on grew with many different users getting worthwhile gain in the process. Despite having less success in the YouTube world, he ended up growing his website with more ambitious videos to where not only would he be successful (even after going into a brief retirement), but also some of his fellow partners like Linkara and the Cinema Snob would gain said success as well. In a way, looking at these two sides of the coin can show that even though one path may lead to a much more recognizable way into glory (or infamy), the other path may end up leading towards a more stabilized path towards success and glory that could not be had by just following certain trends that are rising in popularity.
DiscoGlacier
Unfortunately, this type of humor serves as a bad influence for film parodies, as it does not translate well between mediums. As film has a much higher barrier of entry than the internet, it is expected that its execution of comedy reflects this: what may be funny performed by Youtube amateurs can come of as juvenile coming from theatrical professionals. With Date Movie - the first film directed by Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg - being released a year about Youtube's foundation, there's a correlation between the style of humor found in viral video and the kind found in the two's works. Much like how a Youtube viewer can surf through dozens of unrelated videos in a single day, the duo sifts through pop culture references that have no relation to one another other than being current. This ultimately comes at the expense of the parody's quality, reducing its standards to the medium it takes inspiration from.
While "Leave Britney Alone" may have been funny in its original context, it is shoehorned and out-of-place in this scene.
What makes the spontaneous humor of viral video work is Arnheim's definition of authenticity: these moments capture real events, as they happen to real people or things. Such moments are candid, and need not writing or acting (unless the video is scripted); they are humorous primarily for being unusual yet believable occurrences. The camera remains in the periphery, observing as the events unfold on their own. This works the opposite for film, where everything placed in front of the camera is suited solely for the camera. Sets are constructed, lines are scripted, and actors are hired to say these lines, all to provide a pre-conceived image for the camera. This not only applies to comedy, but to every genre in film; the sole exception to this is Direct Cinema, a type of documentary that takes utmost precaution in preventing any interference with their subjects by the filmmakers. Otherwise, the film medium, by its very nature, is an artificial medium unable to capture the authenticity of viral video.
Viral videos can get away with lower quality (or the lack of any), as they are not only produced with less resources and by people with less comedic experience, but audiences can watch these videos for free. Films, on the other hand, are normally produced with budgets in the millions; even Disaster Movie was made with a budget of $20 million. Part of what makes film comedy funny is in how it can uphold the willing suspension of disbelief through adequate costuming, special effects; etc.: one should be convinced that Giselle is really being hit by a car, rather than a dummy look-alike. In addition, because more money is at stake, a greater understanding of comedy is necessary in order to do it justice. Comedy that can be seen on Youtube for free does not cut it when audiences are paying $8-12 a head for film tickets; the kind of talent deserving of the big screen is one which audience must be willing to pay for.
This is what leads into a greater problem with the modern parody: a lack of understanding of what makes comedy effective. Timing is overlooked, as jokes are telegraphed and are carried on too long. Causality is undermined, as slapstick happens with no real consequence; major characters recover from it and continue with the story uninterrupted, whereas bit parts simply disappear after the punchline has passed. Context serves no significance in these films as well, as many of the jokes hardly tie into the main theme of the films (what is a Napoleon Dynamite reference doing in a parody of date movies?). The greatest faults of these films, however, is the belief that the references are the punchline in themselves, when in fact they merely serve as vehicles towards one. The purpose of a parody is to bring to light the peculiar conventions of a work, genre; etc., then play them out in a humorous context. The modern parody only mocks their subjects at the most basic level, foregoing intricate comedy in favor of bare-bones references.
How exactly is this supposed to be a parody of Batman?
Something is wrong when online comedians can give out a more complex analysis of comedy than major studio films. I have learned a lot about the mechanics of comedy from Douglas Walker, in videos such as why Tom and Jerry succeeds in slapstick humor or why Master of Disguise fails at comedy; the way he critiques and analyzes comedy shows how much more elaborate an art form it is than throwing random things up at the screen hoping the audience would react. Perhaps what this really shows is the internet's potential for not only spontaneous humor, but also professional comedic talent that can far surpass even that of film. Then again, the general objective of film is not necessarily to provide the highest quality of entertainment, but to make the maximum profit possible, and the Seltzerberg duo has been profitable enough to leave a lasting impression on the 2000's image of "parody." Therein lies the peril of parody: the formula of feigned spontaneity simply makes too much money to forego.
HerrVarden
To understand good parody, you must understand good comedy. It's something that can entertain us and make us find the hilarious moments in even the craziest or benign of settings. It's only recently that we have really gotten into the whole "stand-up comedy" routine and seen it's ups and downs. There have been the one-liners and the overly long gags, the silly impressions to the bizarre experiences and many more. All of these acts have cemented comedians' true talent and opened doors to bigger and better projects. Some of them have had massive success while others have been the subject of the problems that modern comedy is facing. Oddly enough, both share at least one certain style of humor among each other. That being dark comedy.
For those of you who are unaware of what this is, dark comedy is basically joking about something that one shouldn't joke about, such as abortion, murder, mutually assured destruction and pedophilia. This is nothing new as in the past there have been jokes that have encompassed this sort of black humor. It was usually done in a more dry tone, as seen by the wit that is Oscar Wilde. Recently though, comedians such as Bill Hicks, George Carlin, Doug Stanhope, Louis C.K., Richard Pryor among many others have used this type of humor, not only to make people laugh at the more solemn subjects but to also pose a thought to them. When dark comedy is used right, it can make people wonder about the gravity of everything that surrounds them to a point of understanding that a greater subtext is underlined in the bit that a comedian does. These bits are usually presented with vile language and turn out to be blunt on what the point of the joke is. A part of what makes this sort of comedy work is by its presentation, which usually consists of shocking the audience either by the subject matter or further delivery of this joke. This is appropriately titled shock humor.
As you would imagine, there are also comedians such as Daniel Tosh and Anthony Jeselnik who don't use it properly. It's not to say that it's the lack of substance in their jokes is the problem; a lot of good comedians (even some of the ones mentioned here) tell good jokes but don't necessarily have any theme or grander purpose to the other than to say something funny. It's rather the actual jokes and the way that they are presented that is the problem. See, both of them seem to use the shock humor to get people to respond to them. In essence, that's what every comedian wants to do, but they simply do it because they want to offend. Both of them present their jokes in the most obnoxious manner. They have off-colored one liners or disgusting comments that some would find as unsettling and off-putting. For others though, their jokes simply come off as trite.
He shouldn't have apologized because he made a rape joke, he should apologize for making a bad joke.
In the time of the internet, the idea of shock humor is nothing particularly surprising. A majority of the in-jokes and general comments that are spewed on to the net are meant to repulse the viewer and some even try to do as much as they can to get you to respond for their own amusement. Those who have delved deeper and spent more time online have grown more immune to that style of humor and it takes a certain way of presenting it to amuse them. Simply going straight for the "Ooh, look at me, I'm offending you" button isn't going to cut it, no matter how repulsive it can be. It has to either be done in a very abstract manner, have some meaning to the joke or simply just be amusing enough that you forget about it's deplorable factor. That's precisely what parodies nowadays seem to forget.
Let's forget that the idea of parody relies on making fun of certain aspects that are present in a genre or film and that current parodies disregard that rule excessively. Let's take away that parodies nowadays are more focused on making terrible pop-culture references that only serve to date them further. They rely on shock humor on the simple basis that it is shocking. It's fowl, wretched, filthy, profane and nothing more. It's simply just there as if that's the only thing that sort of humor needs to be funny. Forget timing, presentation, and any other aspect that could make the joke work, farts are funny on their own. While some of us can't deny that they might be, most of us can agree that it's trashy and dull. Anyone really could make the joke and it does nothing to see it on the big screen in its lack of glory. If anything, it shows that you don't really need to put any effort in making a decent comedy film. Just slap a few crude bits here and there and it'll sell like hotcakes. Nevermind that it's blatantly insulting how low the common denominator has become, it's amusing, am I right? It completely misses the point of parody and instead becomes something that is ripe for mockery, not only of how abysmal it is but how it seems to be okay that you don't need real talent to make it in entertainment. You can be offensive all you want, but that isn't what makes great humor. It's what makes you into a petty troll.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
By succumbing to these pitfalls, parody has worked itself into a rut that can only be escaped with not only awareness, but talent. With the advent of technology, unique challenges have arisen such as the temptation to resort to spontaneous humor as a main source of comedy; others, like using shock value for the sake of shock, have sprouted from much deeper roots. Whether old or new, problems like these are not irreversible, and the parody can reclaim its former glory once again with the mutual agreement of both knowledgeable entertainers and discerning audiences.