DiscussMormonism.com

Comedy, satire, farce, parody: we are all familiar with these forms of comedic or critical film. They are not necessarily funny. Indeed 1984 was a very serious work of satire.

I have noticed a new kind of film (the last 25 years or so) in which the comedic elements are not meant to be discerned by the audience. Indeed the more openly the film can mock its own audience while still having the audience endure or even enjoy the insults the better it is! Chutzpah, effrontery, audacity, but something more. The openess of the mockery is an essential element.

The straight man in a comedy is said to represent the audience who sees the insanity of the comedic elements of the artistic world. In recognizing both the absurdirty and truth of the elements the audience finds humour.

Now imagine such a comedy except the audience is provided no straight man. The comedic world is represented not as something fantastical and absurd but totally normalized. Not something to be mocked, but something to aspire too!

The author and producers are not only aware of the absurdity of the work of art but also of the seriousness in which it is recieved! They with utmost care craft it to be taken seriously when it is anythint but. They get joy out of it. All the stupid people delighting in the most banal idiocy and pretending the emperor is adorned in the finest of frockery!

Its akin to the trolls who convince the world the okay symbol is actually a white supremacist secret code. And they all believe it! It is a joke both of horror and nihilism. A joke of contempt and disdain. A kind of absurdist gallows humor.

Perhaps there is a word for it which i do not know.

What say you? Was star wars designed to mock its own audience?

iwanttotalk wrote:The author and producers are not only aware of the absurdity of the work of art but also of the seriousness in which it is recieved! They with utmost care craft it to be taken seriously when it is anythint but. They get joy out of it. All the stupid people delighting in the most banal idiocy and pretending the emperor is adorned in the finest of frockery!

I see that you made it to your first Trump rally. : )

canpakes wrote:

iwanttotalk wrote:The author and producers are not only aware of the absurdity of the work of art but also of the seriousness in which it is recieved! They with utmost care craft it to be taken seriously when it is anythint but. They get joy out of it. All the stupid people delighting in the most banal idiocy and pretending the emperor is adorned in the finest of frockery!

I see that you made it to your first Trump rally. : )

That post really does suffer from an extreme lack of self-awareness... almost Poe's Law.

It's a parody about whether a parody joke is on the consumer who can't tell if it's a parody or not.

I guess I'm not as interested in inspecting iwtt's anus as he is. He should figure this one out for himself.

The leap in the OP is Evil Knievel-esque whereas it is vast, unsuccessful, and results in comedic injury to the leaper.

But hey, the futile impeachment efforts of the Democrats is both sad and tedious; so anyone care to translate how Star Wars is Abott and Costello sans Bud Abott.

iwanttotalk wrote:Now imagine such a comedy except the audience is provided no straight man. The comedic world is represented not as something fantastical and absurd but totally normalized.

So, Arrested Development?

Its akin to the trolls who convince the world the okay symbol is actually a white supremacist secret code. And they all believe it! It is a joke both of horror and nihilism. A joke of contempt and disdain. A kind of absurdist gallows humor.

https://i.imgur.com/8WKo1lq.jpg

EAllusion wrote:

iwanttotalk wrote:Now imagine such a comedy except the audience is provided no straight man. The comedic world is represented not as something fantastical and absurd but totally normalized.

So, Arrested Development?

I'm trying to imagine the world where George Lucas writes and directs the first Star Wars, not as his own version of Buck Rogers, but as an inside joke where he and his buds get to use it to mock sci fi nerds. It seems the OP projected his feelings towards Star Wars fans onto the originator but then one is left wondering why do that? Why not just be content with one's opinion it's stupid, people who are fans are dumb, and he himself wouldn't be caught dead admitting to enjoying even the shortest moment in a Star Wars movie?

I think you were spot on to refocus on the OP's similar view of alt right trolling the world from their parent's basements where nothing rises about the level of a joke unless it's due to someone confusing irony with sincerity and thereby becoming the very thing being ironically mocked. Perhaps in that world, where Lucas' success and loyal fandom are hyper-overt expressions of pop culture, one is obligated to explain it through the only lens available where the fandom must be due to the inability to recognize the irony Lucas must have intended given no one can be sincere about anything, ever without actually being the thing being mocked.

The OP lives in a miserable world, apparently. Sucks to be him.

I would add, I don't think most media every actually is the thing the OP describes. Arrested Development isn't a project aimed at an audience that wouldn't get the joke, being versions of Tobias or George Sr. themselves and loving it because they see themselves in it.

Or, maybe nothing ever starts that way. I suspect there are plenty of forms of entertainment put out as money grabs that tap into an audience without respecting said audience. Probably every movie made based on a video game would fall into that category. But to be the thing the OP postulates, I suspect to exist it would need to be a later phase of a project where the creator comes to hate their fan base and begins to troll them by giving them more and more of the things that made them fans, and that make the creator hate them. I think Dan Harmon treads in that territory on his projects, mostly because he's a dude bro who hates dude bros. His creative instincts, as sharp as they are, are pulling their nutrients from a mind of a guy who dropped out of community college but thinks he has the whole world figured out. So he ends up writing in a way that appeals most to a fan base he thinks is beneath him despite it being reflective of him. The primary difference being he rubs elbows in Hollywood which makes a person learn how to parody certain behaviors without having the underlying awareness needed to not be a dick about it. Or whatever that is.

On the other end of that spectrum are forms like Idiocracy, which is not intended to be a joke that pulls in fans who are redneck truck pull, in-breds but instead appeal to people who are, well, yeah. Also Hollywood woke. But Mike Judge made a movie that, minus the mocking of people who turned out to be Trump's base, is such a terrible movie - as a movie - only someone with the sensibilities of a Trump fan should be able to watch it. The concept is so basic while the movie is such a direct representation of the thing it mocks that one gains more from a one-line description of the movie than from watching the actual movie. I don't think that's the same as the OP's suggestion, either. But its a version of it.

Yeah, the audience isn't the joke in Arrested Development. It's just a show where every character is absurd and there's no true straight man. The caveat to this is that characters can act as straight men in relation to one another in individual scenes in the show. But they're all ridiculous people in a ridiculous world that is presented as normal. It's probably the best example of that type of comedy working.

The sensibility Smokey is after here is more like OG Tom Green. I know it's tempting to think of him as a hobo's Andy Kaufman, but with Kaufmann the audience was supposed to be in on the joke. Green, on the other hand, would also troll his own audience. Smoke is just trying to elevate trolling into some complex artform when he and his fellow travelers are just being idiots.

Idiocracy has flaws, but it's not a terrible movie. It's more like a great movie with production problems that made it only sporadically good. It's a cult movie now for a reason.

Star Wars isn't some meta-joke. I would argue that Star Wars - just the first film - is 70's art house cinema that accidentally became a blockbuster because Lucas was surrounded by a ton of good talent. It's a mashup of genre flicks that, from a 70's point of view, used to be regarded as trash but were being reevaluated by academics who liked them when they were younger as having redeeming value. That's then mixed with a framework from Kurosawa, who is rightly regarded as high art then and now. It's the sort of thing you'd expect a young film student to come up with in its time and place.

EAllusion wrote:The sensibility Smokey is after here is more like OG Tom Green.

Interesting example. I forgot about him, and don't have a good sense of if he intended to be above his own audience. Eating cow poop to get views to be able to troll people on MTV seems...I'm not sure what that was.

Idiocracy has flaws, but it's not a terrible movie. It's more like a great movie with production problems that made it only sporadically good. It's a cult movie now for a reason.

We'll have to agree to disagree. in my opinion, the entire cult status of the movie derives from people feeling like it's a joke about someone they know or a type of people they know. Since Trump, it gets referenced as if it were a documentary in some circles. But minus that "look at those dopes over there" message and tropes it uses to make sure you know who those dopes are, it's exactly the kind of movie "those dopes over there" would be more likely to watch. Watching it kills brain cells.

Star Wars isn't some meta-joke. I would argue that Star Wars - just the first film - is 70's art house cinema that accidentally became a blockbuster because Lucas was surrounded by a ton of good talent. It's a mashup of genre flicks that, from a 70's point of view, used to be regarded as trash but were being reevaluated by academics who liked them when they were younger as having redeeming value. That's then mixed with a framework from Kurosawa, who is rightly regarded as high art then and now. It's the sort of thing you'd expect a young film student to come up with in its time and place.

Good points. The Hidden Fortress/Akira Kurosawa influence certainly has a punching up effect. I also think sound design, and frankly a few of the actors being incredible unknown talents also made a huge difference. In some ways, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher may be the main difference between the original film being fun and swashbuckling rather than wooden and cringe-worthy, descending into Attack of the Clones territory.

EAllusion wrote:Star Wars isn't some meta-joke. I would argue that Star Wars - just the first film - is 70's art house cinema that accidentally became a blockbuster because Lucas was surrounded by a ton of good talent.

Yeah, I agree with this.

Interestingly enough, I just watched Star Wars last week. I can't remember the last time I watched it, but it's been several years at least.

I have to say... it has way more problems than I remember. It's actually kind of funny how much of the film has been overlooked, or assumed away.

One of things I noticed watching it this time was C-3PO totally screwing over Luke's uncle. The red R2 unit blows his "motivator" just after buying it from the Jawas, so C-3PO recommends R2-D2, and they take him instead.

After that recommendation, C-3PO proceeds to knock R2 every time he gets a chance.

That droid is really going to get me in trouble.

Oh, he excels at that, sir.

(Why doesn't Luke say, "Then why did you recommend him, asshole?")

...

I would much rather have gone with Master Luke than stay here with you. I don't know what all this trouble is about, but I'm sure it must be your fault.