FS101: British Comedy in Translation

What is a hive mind? It's you, when I ask you to go digging for resources as a distributed group. :) Note that if you were to watch all of these, you'd probably have well more than an hour of viewing ahead of you. So, pick and choose, and we'll share a bit on Friday.

In the realm of sketch comedy, A Bit of Fry and Laurie (playlist link) was flagged as good viewing by Erin N. I liked the Song for America myself.

Following on in this theme, Steph pointed me to the League of Gentlemen, which I was not familiar with at all. Aqua Vita clearly involves beer (it looks like Stella Artiois or Budwiser to me), and the character Papa Lazaru is... stranger than I expected. (Here's two skits, and one of the cast talking about the character... which helped. Sorta.) The Catherine Tate show clip hit a bit closer to home, as I did actually meet people who spoke that way. (The French Oral skit is funny as well, tying nicely into the Brit's tensions with the French.) She also threw in some Maz Jobrani under duress... apparently, her roommate insists she watch Maz all the time. Her Psychoville links were fairly disturbing as well... clearly, Steph has a fairly dark sense of humor.

Emily D. sent along some Blackadder (Rowin Atkinson) which is a classic Brit comedy series. The Good Life is another classic series which may take a bit of time to work through. And back to the Atkinson, The Thin Blue Line is another series from the past. Clearly, Emily is a classicist when it comes to British comedy.

Emily M. also sent along some Fry and Laurie (Don't Believe the Hype, Your Name Sir?), a bit of Fawlty Towers (classic Cleese: Whose Fault is It?, Moving Tables), and a few favorites from the Flying Circus (Ministry of Silly Walks, an absolute classic, and Silly Olympics). The Drunken Room sketch (unknown source) was new to me, but definitely funny. Given her selections, we can safely say that Emily prefers the absurd to the dark.

Mike V. passed on Brass Eye, which was not a show I was familiar with. Animals might be about shock value (to some extent), and Mike cautions us that the episode Good AIDS vs. Bad AIDS is potentially a "bit more offensive." (I take that back... the show reminded me of Cake, a made up drug in England. It's the same group. So, I was familiar, but I didn't know it. Whoda thunk.)

Hannah K. sent us one of my favorite musical comedy groups, the Flight of the Conchords. Business Time, Hiphopopotamus vs. Rhymenoceros, and The Humans are Dead are all excellent, although I think its a tie between the first and last as to which is the best. (No, they're not Brits, but we'll forgive Hannah for today.)

Genevieve went the more "intellectual" route, and focused on modern life in Britain. I received a selection of Little Britain sketches. Perhaps "intellectual" was the wrong word... certainly, there was a clear theme, so Genevieve gets three points.

Grant likes Keeping Up Appearances, but wasn't happy with the pickings on YouTube. Tough luck. -6.

Ryan pointed us at The Office. Not, mind you, the watered down thing that they show over here. No, this is the original, the thing that started it all. Tim's Birthday, Fire Drill, Midgets and Dwarfs (should that be dwarves?) and The Dance are all offered up for your consideration.

Hudson gives us some classic Python in the form of the Meaning of Life (the Autumn Years). From Spaced he sends us the Dance Scene, which was not one I was familiar with. 

Lastly, Eric contributs some Harry Enfield, which is classic and, historically, very sexist. 

Politics.

Luke suggested that we might hit on the last comedic frontier: politics. He sent along a few links, and I've added one or two more.

First, Jackie Mason. This isn't British comedy, but it's an example of old-skool political comedy. (Well, perhaps its just standup. You be the judge.)

Classic British political comedy comes to us in the form of Yes, Prime Minister. I've included a clip or two here:

How's the Environment?

Art Council Funding

Yes, Prime Minister was a regular show that simply poked fun at the ineptitude of government. That, of course, is fair game. But how far can we go?

Ricky Gervais (Hitler & Nietzsche)

Gervais (Sharks and Nazis)

Abe Lincoln Assasination (Family Guy)

Is the Holocaust funny? Why not? What about assassinations? Would it be less funny if the assassination in question was someone else? JFK? MLK? 

When does tragedy become comedy... or does it? How?

We're still 

Is comedy about religion funny? Fair game? Inappropriate? Why? 

Borat and Brüno both touch on this question, but the Pythons and other modern British comedians hit the subject a bit harder. The Pythons, for example, let the Roman Catholics have it in Every Sperm is Sacred, a musical number from their feature-length film The Meaning of Life. 

Every Sperm is Sacred (YouTube)

And in their feature-length film The Life of Brian, the entire movie takes the Christ story and has a field day. The movie closes with a tap number on crucifixes:

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life (YouTube)

Ricky Gervais also uses religion as a backdrop for both some of his sketch and stand-up comedy. In Extras, the premise is that he and the other regulars on the show are "extras" in various movie productions. Big-name stars are brought through as guests: in this episode, Kate Winslet (appearing as a nun) provides very un-nun-like advice.

Kate Winslet in Extras (YouTube)

And, lastly, a piece of his stand-up work. Specifically, having a bit of a go at the Bible.

Ricky Gervais on Genesis (YouTube)

Lastly, on the subject of the Snake, Rowan Atkinson gives us the Devil sorting the sinful as they enter Hell.

Welcome to Hell (YouTube)

Feel free to bring in examples you find elsewhere to add to the discussion—whether it is funny and fair game or not. If there is interest, we can organize a viewing of Life of Brian, which is typically rated as Britian's most favorite comedic film.

Part of Wednesday will be discussion regarding the presentations you've seen Friday and Monday.

For Friday, I'd like to you come in prepared to discuss a bit more about HH2G. Specifically, we now have the anti-epic article in our arsenal, which gives us one lens into the text. What I think might be interesting is to spend a bit more time reflecting on the characters we're presented with, their worldview/philosophy on life, and what that might tell us about Adams and his view of the world. (Indeed, what kind of person are you if you adopt the philosophies espoused in the HH2G?)

You might have some other questions we can ask—what does it say about modern British society, what kind of lens will it provide 200 years from now, etc... ultimately, you can ask many of the same questions of this text as we did of the Austen.

Monday we have a visit from ACCEL scheduled—come in with your questions about summer opportunities ready-to-go, and I'll see you Wednesday.

I want my voice back; patience, I hear, and it might return. (Perhaps it is on walkabout?)

I thought today's exercise was excellent. These small improv exercises are meant to be fun opportunities to be goofy and (among other things) practice breathing, projecting, and emoting.

We'll keep building on these fundamental speaking skills over the course of the semester. In the meantime, I wanted to share with you a bit of inspiration. While trying to find examples for my CMPSC112 class that weren't BORING AS SIN, I ended up finding various a cappella bits. 

I thought I'd share one I found. It showcases an octet demonstrating some excellent vocal projection (at the start) and, along with that, being goofy. (Being goofy is mostly a matter of having no fear. That, or no shame. I haven't figured out which yet.) 

I look forward to Friday's presentations. They'll be awesome.

WHAT: Much Ado About Nothing

WHEN: 7:00 PM (Tuesday, Wednesday, AND Thursday)

WHERE: Alden 210

TECH: Luke (Tuesday), Matt (Wednesday), Jackie (Thursday)

Much Ado is a romantic comedy (read: old-skool chick flick) set in Messina, Italy. It is about love, betrayal, and Keanu Reaves being completely incapable of delivering any line with any affect whatsoever. 

You may find it is worthwhile to check out the cast of characters in advance, and possibly even the major themes and/or plot synopsis. 

Focusing Questions

I have a large pile of "study questions" that a colleague shared with me, and there are countless questions on the 'net. After doing some searching, I've decided that there is no particular point in scanning in the questions I have, as this set online is fairly comprehensive and coherent. They're useful for giving you some questions to help watch more critically.

Also, for reference: a YouTube playlist containing the entire movie as well as another modern adaptation that I am not at all familiar with.

We only talked briefly about how you might go about reading a paper. I thought I'd take a moment to share a bit here, in the event that it might help.

Strategy

First, you could read How to Read a Paper by S. Keshav. (That is a link to the ACM Digital Library; a local version is available here.) This is a short guide to reading research papers. Although it is a bit tilted towards reading scientific literature, it seems to apply very well to pretty much any scholarly article you might encounter.

The summary? Read the paper in multiple passes. With each pass, you read for an increasing level of detail. You should probably be taking notes along the way. See the paper for more about this approach.

Example

With respect to notes, I want to encourage you to write on your papers. I find it forces me to reflect on the material of the paper while I am reading it. You might take notes in the margins, in a notebook, or both.

When I read Do Offensive Words Harm People? (DOWHP), I covered it in comments. You can download a version of the paper with my comments on it, and see what kinds of notes I made along the way. I didn't follow Keshav's methods (having read his paper after reading our paper for class), so my margin notes have less structure than they might otherwise.

Time

This does take time. Reading for a deeper understanding takes time. If you want to get deep into what the author is saying, as opposed to just absorb the high-level concepts they are trying to express, you will need to spend time reading and re-reading a paper.

As you get more accustomed to reading this way, you will get faster. And, you'll learn to spot a well-written paper—because it will be easier to understand more quickly. My careful reading of DOWHP took (I think) around 1.5 hours. Maybe it was closer to an hour—I'm not sure. Regardless, I had to read slowly, take notes, and occasionally stare out the window and reflect on what was being said.

Keep in mind—it is hard to focus for long periods of time. Sometimes you need to step away for a few minutes, take a short break, etc. I did that half-way through, and found the rest of the paper was easier to finish after having taken a break.