Humor

The humor project was meant for us to explore the different themes and techniques that different comedians use. We then took what we learned and applied it to our own projects in making skits or stand up comedy routines. First, in our project, we did a humorist analysis in order to determine what comedic techniques and styles we wanted to use. For my analysis I looked at Louis CK and Key and Peele.

 

Humorist Analysis

The two comedians I selected for my humorist study are Key and Peele (more specifically their comedy sketches) and Louis CK. While both comedians use different mediums to show their routines and share different subject matters, they both share a surprisingly large number of similarities in both their styles and the comedic tools they utilize.

Key and Peele are a comedy duo that became popular through their sketch comedy, which is most heavily featured in their show on Comedy Central. Louis CK is a stand up comedian who also acts and occasionally directs films. One marked difference between the comedians are the subjects. Key and Peele tend to take situations that may appear normal or cliche at first, but introduce ridiculous and over the top characters that soon turn the sketch into a more absurdist piece. In one famous sketch, Key and Peele set up the situation as simply one student telling another a joke, followed by the student who heard the joke to repeat it louder to the class, getting many more laughs. A normal situation, until more and more powerful figures start showing up in the classroom and hearing the joke, all finding it hilarious. Eventually, Barack Obama awards the offending student with a presidential medal of comedy. Key and Peele’s style is evident here, a seemingly normal situation becomes more and more absurd as more characters are introduced. They heavily utilize absurd humor both in this skit and many of their others along with situational humor that takes advantage of the normalcy of the setup and contrasts it with the ridiculous characters or changes that happen throughout the sketch..

Louis CK does not take advantage of the sketch medium, instead opting for solo routines performed live. Unlike Key and Peele, Louis CK takes normal situations and points out ridiculous aspects of it rather than introducing ridiculous characters. One example was his wizard of oz routine where he commented on a popular older movie and brought up how many of the scenes are grossly overrated or completely unrealistic. Instead of bringing in outside influences to make his comedy work, Louis CK instead uses the humor already within a subject matter. In addition to this subject matter difference, Louis CK also uses blue humor much more heavily than Key and Peele does, although they do use it to some degree in a few of their sketches.

While they do have their differences, Key and Peele and Louis CK share many similar aspects in their comedy styles. In terms of comedic tools, both often use satire, whether it be in Key and Peele’s anger translator skits (satirizing Obama’s cool demeanor as being a front for unbridled rage) or in one of Louis CK’s numerous routines where he makes fun of politicians or politics in general. One of the most obvious similarities, however, lies in their use of impressions. While not something people go to immediately when they think of either comedian, watching either of their works will make it apparent that much of their humor comes from their absurd impressions. Whether its Key and Peele’s impression of rich white golfers or Iranian kebab store owners or Louis CK’s gross exaggeration of a valley girl, both use absurd, over the top impressions to complement the jokes they tell.

The trait they both share that I want to emulate in my own project is their use of normal situations to tell absurd jokes. While Louis CK specializes in turning normal situations absurd from within and Key and Peele are good at contrasting over the top characters with a normal situation, I want to combine both of these ideas in some way. In my comedy piece, I want to tell a story that appears normal at first, but becomes more absurd and therefore funnier as the sketch/routine continues.

My main inspiration for this idea stems from Key and Peele, but I also have the opportunity to use many of Louis CK’s techniques. While his blue humor may be a bit much, he has a way of revealing more information about himself in order to make previous jokes he told even funnier. He forces the audience to recall what he said earlier that, when given context, are even better than when he first told them. Later on he may even recall these older jokes to get even more laughs. While Key and Peele are good at having multiple characters interact to make jokes, Louis CK is incredibly skilled in using just his own character (or those he describes) to add to his jokes. I want to use both of these techniques and create a sketch that appears normal, but slowly becomes more absurd as we learn more about the one (or two) main characters.

One aspect of both comedians I want to try and avoid, however, are their use of impressions. While many find them hilarious, they can be interpreted as a crutch used to support jokes that, without the context the fake accent/outfit the impression provides, may fall flat. In addition I want to avoid seeming offensive or completely failing with my impression and just making the routine worse. While Key and Peele and Louis CK may be able to use impressions effectively, this is not a route I want to pursue.

By using comedic techniques from both Key and Peele and Louis CK, I want to tell a comedy sketch by revealing both new characters and new characteristics within the initial subjects of the skit. The interactions between these newly revealed traits/characters will provide the basis for whatever project I end up creating.

 

Once I was finished analyzing these two comedians, I started working on a humor project with Amanda Chan. We chose to do a short skit that borrowed absurd elements from Key and Peele along with their technique of “zooming out” to reveal more information throughout the skit. First, we wrote our script before we started production.

Production of script

Humor Project Script

INT. RESTAURANT OR DINNER TABLE. DAY

 

MEAT-GAN and their friends sit down at a table. They all bring out their food and Meat-gan gives the stink eye to the people with salad. Meat-Gan’s eyes grow wide as they realize that everyone is consuming plants happily. Meat-gan is shocked, appalled, horrified at the sight before them. People eat plants in slow motion messily, chomping down without a care in the world. They continue eating as Meat-gan gets more and more worked up, the black bars really coming in hot and some nice ringing audio hell yeah.

Meat-gan slams their hands down on the table.

 

Meatgan: You’re really going to eat those plants in front of me?

 

Dead silence. Everyone looks up from their salads. Lettuce falls out of their gaping mouths. Is Meat-gan on crack?

 

Meatgan: You know I’m meat-gan.

 

Friend 1: What?

 

Meatgan: Meat-gan. (beef. nobody knows what they’re talking about. they look around confused then continue speaking) I made a twitter post about this last night. (proud) I’ve officially gone meat-gan.

 

Friend 2: Do you mean vegan?

 

Meatgan (appalled, taken aback): MEAT-gan. (self-righteously) I’ve made the bold decision to not take part in the mass murder of plants.

 

Friend 1: Wait so you’re… a carnivore? Is that what this is?

 

Meatgan (hurt, offended): This is nothing like being a carnivore. Being a carnivore is primitive. Being a meat-gan is a lifestyle choice.

 

Friend 2: Oh, I think I understand

 

Friend 1: What do you mean you understand?! This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

 

Meatgan: You clearly don’t understand what going meat-gan means. When you eat plants, you’re hurting the environment. I’m doing my part and not damaging mother earth more than I have to. (beat) I’m SAVING oxygen.  

 

Friend 2: Oh man, I could never do that. Plants are too delicious.

 

Meatgan (flexing): I know. It’s so hard. But I guess my moral fiber is stronger than others…

 

MEATGAN looks over at Friend 1 who is still eating their salad. Friend 1 stops mid bite before taking another spiteful bite of salad. Meatgan begins to chomp down on their meat sandwich (2 cuts of meat sandwiching together another cut of meat idk something nasty like that). Passerby walks past Meatgan and Friend 1 and 2’s table, doing a double take on the meat sandwich.

 

Passerby: Sorry I don’t mean to intrude but… is that a meat sandwich?

 

Meatgan: Yeah. I identify as what you might call a —

 

Passerby: Meatgan? Oh my god, me too! Wow, it’s so nice to finally meet so many other —

 

Passerby looks at Friend 1 and 2’s plates, noting all the plants. Friend 2 looks embarrased and hides his plate. Passerby gets increasingly more enraged (re: the anger Meatgan had in the first part)

 

Passerby: I mean, another meatgan.

 

Meatgan: That’s what I’ve been saying! I’ve been trying to get these two to go meatgan for sooooo many years!

 

Friend 1: You literally just went meatgan yes–

 

Passerby: Me too! Honestly, I can’t even look at plants for too long without getting (passerby shudders). (friend 2 understandably nods)

 

Friend 1: Hold on, shut up! This is ridiculous. If you really want to save the environment, how about — oh, I don’t know — not eating animals? Animals have feelings. Plants don’t.

 

Meatgans look confused. Passerby raises an eyebrow. They shared a confused look, contemplating the idea that plants don’t have feelings. They whisper to each other silently, sharing a few silent laughs or whatever before Meatgan turns back to Friend 1.

 

Meatgan: Look, I’m not saying that being meatgan makes you smarter than everyone else… but a meatgan would never say that. (beef) Being meatgan isn’t for everyone. I guess people like you just… don’t have what it takes.

 

Friend 1: I don’t think I’m —

 

Friend 2 sheepishly pushes away their salad, avoiding eye contact with Friend 1.

 

Friend 1: Oh my god, not you too?

 

Friend 2: I just… the science isn’t conclusive y’know? Meatganism… it makes sense.

 

Friend 1: You’ve got to be —

 

Meatgan and Passerby high five Friend 2 and they all move to the same side of the table. Friend 1 looks between Friend 2 and Meatgan/Passerby, angry and defiant. Meatgan, Passerby, and Friend 2 look smugly at each other, all crossing their arms and looking distastefully at Friend 1’s food choice in front of them. Slow motion: Meatgan smirks, Passerby shakes their head at Friend 1, Friend 2 sneakily pulls some lettuce out of their teeth.

 

Friend 1 see’s he’s not getting anywhere, and hits his salad off the table standing up.

 

Friend 1: You know what, you guys can have fun with your stupid meat. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to happily get a bottle of balsamic dressing and murder some plants elsewhere.

 

Friend 1 storms off. The meatgans crowd around the fallen salad. The original meatgan picks up a lettuce leaf, caressing it.

 

Meatgan: There there, you’re alright now

 

The camera reveals a small, cute face on the lettuce leaf, crying softly.

 

Fin

 

Once we finished our script we produced, edited and presented our final project

Final Product and Presentation

ARVE Error: Mode: lazyload not available (ARVE Pro not active?), switching to normal mode
ARVE Error: Mode: lazyload not available (ARVE Pro not active?), switching to normal mode

Finally, as a part of the honors program we had to write an essay comparing two different absurdist humor pieces. For my essay I compared Kurt Vonegut’s Slaughterhouse V and Eugene Ionesco’s Rhinoceros.

Honors Essay

One hallmark of post World War Two literature is the emergence of both absurdism and the postmodernist movement (cite). The horrors presented to society from both world wars drove many to question the nature of both society and human instinct as a whole. If humans were capable of slaughtering millions of each other on the battlefield and in their own homes, then is there any universal truth? Both Kurt Vonnegut and Eugene Ionesco grappled with these ideas in their works Slaughterhouse V and Rhinoceros. While a quick glance reveals shared characteristics among both such as their use of absurd humor, a deeper read reveals even more underlying similarities. Both works address the dangers of conformity, particularly with the rise of fascism. In addition, both Vonnegut and Ionesco write about the detachment from reality that people and soldiers experienced following the horrors of World War Two.

The most obvious similarity (not including the use of absurdism) is the fear of conformity both Slaughterhouse V and Rhinoceros present. In Rhinoceros, this fear takes the form of the rhinoceros transformations that plague a small French town. Throughout the book many people seem indifferent or awestruck of the creatures, but eventually those who inevitably turn into rhinoceri seem to accept or even welcome their transformation. The protagonist’s friend, Dudard, first shows this acceptance of radical change by saying “blah blah cite when you get a copy of the book.” Despite the horror that transforming into a rhinoceros seems, people in Rhinoceros seem to readily accept their transformation. Ionesco reinforces this idea in following transformations, with each person’s last words always having something to do with accepting or even encouraging their change. In Slaughterhouse V, the critique of conformity is more subtle, but present nonetheless. Vonnegut, in his quasi-autobiographical first chapter, describes the process of writing his novel writing, “‘If I ever do finish [the book], I give you my word of honor: there won’t be any part for Frank Sinatra or John Wayne’” (15). While at first cryptic, Vonnegut here is describing his opposition to the pro-war culture that was shown in the media. He wants to go against the grain of many other authors who want to cast war as a more glorious and noble pursuit. While some may say that Vonnegut addressed a different type of conformity (anti-war), one must remember that both works were written soon after the events of World War Two. While Rhinoceros doesn’t directly reference it, Ionesco writes about conformity that stemmed from World War Two. Whether its accepting ridicoulous transformations or glorifying war, both Vonnegut and Ionesco write on the dangers of accepting change simply because its happening to others.

When looking at the context both works were written in, one can connect the fear of conformity presented in both novels and extend it to also include a fear of the rise of fascism. One hallmark trait of fascism is the forced uniformity of society it brings with it, whether it be racial or ideological (both in the case of the Nazi party). Since Rhinoceros and Slaughterhouse V are both post World War Two works, their fear of conformity stems from the conformity present in the fascist Nazi party and the horrors it brought with it. Rhinoceros presents its fear of fascism in the transformations people have into rhinoceri. As the novel nears its end, the play describes the faces of the rhinoceri as “cite” (). This is similar to how the Nazi party portrayed the Aryan race as “cite” (). In addition, the people who become rhinos throughout the novel often think themselves superior to others, such as Dudard who says “cite” (). As he nears his transformation, he insists on his superioirty as a rhinoceros, saying “cite” (). Even as his skin and bones are twisting and causing a hideous transformation, Dudard insists his transformation is natural and welcome. This draws a parallel with the attitude of Nazi germany, a country that was complicit as its government transformed into a war machine that gassed large populations of its own citizens. In both cases, unnatural transformations are accepted on the basis that they can do no wrong. While Slaughterhouse V also addresses this idea, it does so in a way that places more blame on all parties involved in World War Two. While Ionesco creates a villian out of the rhinoceri, Vonnegut chooses to place blame on all parties involved in the war. This is clear when he describes both the prisoner of war camps the Nazis created and the firebombing of Dresden American forces carried out. He further illustrates this point by writing both American soldiers and German soldiers as the same; haphazardly dressed recruits. (maybe expand on this more with evidence about how raggad the American troops are and with the 17 year old German soldier with a thicc rifle, or the troop that captures Billy). Both parties fight because that is what their country called them to do. No matter what side, the soldiers conform to the beliefs of those who sent them to fight. In both pieces, the conformity present in the novels is rooted in the rise of fascism that happened preceding and in World War Two. These parallels are especially clear in Rhinoceros despite Slaughterhouse V’s setting.

Another similarity both Rhinoceros and Slaughterhouse V is their portrayal of the detachment from reality that accompanies trauma. Again based in their source inspiration of World War Two, both pieces illustrate how characters react when presented with trauma. In Rhinocerous this is portrayed in the character’s responses to seeing a rhinoceros. In the beggining of the play the main character, (blank), pretends to not even see a rhinoceros that ran through the street, “cite”(), while other characters like Dudard try to dodge the idea by trying to figure out if the rhinoceros was asiatic or african. In both cases characters deal with a traumatic change by ignoring the true problem; an outbreak of dangerous rhinoceros transformations. In Slaughterhouse V, Billy Pilgrim removes himself from reality by living in a fantasy in which he is abducted by aliens, lives with a porn star, and posses a “tremendous wang” (). In order to cope with the horror he saw in war such as his fellow soldiers dying and the bombing of Dresden, Billy constructs a fantasy for himself safe and far away from war. In both Rhinoceros and Slaughterhouse V, characters avoid confronting a difficult reality by ignoring the problem or escaping to a fantasy. This is rooted in the source inspiration for both works, the dissociation from reality present in the writing was also present in the world following World War Two.

Finally, both Rhinoceros and Slaughterhouse V share the post-modernist trait of accepting the horrors present as a part of life. While many might see novels of the movement as depressing, both Rhinoceros and Slaughterhouse V end on hopeful notes for the future. Rhinoceros ends with the protagonists being alone in a world filled with rhinoceri. Despite being alone in the world, (main guy), he still ends the novel hopeful for the future, saying “cite”(). Similarly, Slaugtherhouse V ends with a bird looking over the fire-bombed ruins of Dresden and giving a single call “po-twee-weet”(). This along with the repeated phrase in the novel which follows every death, “So it goes.” This is meant to represent how death is simply a natural part of life, and that despite the ruins following world war two, life will go on. Both Rhinoceros and Slaughterhouse V finish the chaos and destruction present in their writing by looking to the future instead of remaining in the past.