New Domici
17-09-2006, 19:09
Ok, I've pointed out before that it's almost impossible to spoof conservatives because the conservative agenda these days is set up in such a way that comedy doesn't really apply to it. It would be like trying to shoot algea off of a pond.
For comedy of the spoof variety to work, the comedian must find some facet of the subject that is worthy of criticism, and then exaggerate that flaw until it becomes obvious to the viewer who had not noticed it previously. If the comedian exaggerates too much, the joke fails as simplisitic childish insults. Like calling a litterbug a nazi, or calling a Catholic a Satanist. Take the two Saturday Night sketch shows and their respective impersonations of James Lipton for example. SNL exaggerates how big of a suck-up Lipton is to the point that he utters effusive praise for Skreech from Saved by the Bell and a bit-player from Rowan and Martain's Laugh-in. Mad TV does it by simply portraying Lipton as a lunatic prone to self-injury. SNL's is funny becuase the viewer recognizes the trait in Lipton that's being mocked. Mad TV's isn't because even if James Lipton has stumbled once or twice, it's hardly a defining trait of his personality, so it's absurd to mock him for it.
This is almost impossible to do with conservatives because the politicians who self-identify as conservatives are already so absurd that it is obvious to anyone who cares to watch. If you exaggerate what they do, it goes past the point of humor to simple childish insults. In many cases what they do is already so absurd that if you point it out to someone who isn't aware of it then they'll probably think that you're exaggerating to an absurd degree.
e.g. On liberal radio, they were calling the White House Press Corp a "bunch of whores." Sounds like a total hyperbole, right? Even if you extend the definition of 'whore' to include people who sell out a service that is supposed to have standards, it seems like an unfair characterization. Well, then it turns out that one of them is a whore. Not a metaphorical "sold out to the industry" whore. And actual has-sex-with-people-for-money whore. So the statement goes from being a childish insult to documentary record-keeping without having spent any time in the middle as humorous commentary.
So I figure, they can be mocked from a completly different direction. Reality.
Remember Pop-Up Video? A VH1 show in which music videos would be played and bits of trivia would be displayed in pop-up bubbles that explain bits of trivia and then tangents on the trivia.
What if we do a show like that with the Right-wing talk shows? The TV ones obviously, it would be a bit tough to do with pop-up audio on the radio.
As Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity is delivering their insane diatribe little pop-up bubbles would appear adding the stuff they left out, clearing up the stuff that they leave vague, providing context for what they misquote, or simply telling the truth where they tell lies.
Think about it. O'Reilly says of Barbara Boxer (after being corrected on the "truth or troops" question) "she said she (Condoleza Rice) didn't support the troops. She said "I think you let your respect for the president override your respect for the troops. Then she said "don't you impune my... respect for the troops and da d'da d'da." Then a little pop-up bubble would appear saying "actually Boxer did say "respect for the truth" and Rice said "impune my integrity."
Or Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would say to Bill, "You're a great guy with a lot of credibility, and a credit to your profession." Then Bill would say "thank you very much," and a pop-up bubble would appear saying "triumph then goes on to say "oh wait, we're in the no spin zone right? Well then, YOU SUCK!!!"
These days I don't think anything could be funnier than looking at reality juxtaposed with what Right-wingers say.
For comedy of the spoof variety to work, the comedian must find some facet of the subject that is worthy of criticism, and then exaggerate that flaw until it becomes obvious to the viewer who had not noticed it previously. If the comedian exaggerates too much, the joke fails as simplisitic childish insults. Like calling a litterbug a nazi, or calling a Catholic a Satanist. Take the two Saturday Night sketch shows and their respective impersonations of James Lipton for example. SNL exaggerates how big of a suck-up Lipton is to the point that he utters effusive praise for Skreech from Saved by the Bell and a bit-player from Rowan and Martain's Laugh-in. Mad TV does it by simply portraying Lipton as a lunatic prone to self-injury. SNL's is funny becuase the viewer recognizes the trait in Lipton that's being mocked. Mad TV's isn't because even if James Lipton has stumbled once or twice, it's hardly a defining trait of his personality, so it's absurd to mock him for it.
This is almost impossible to do with conservatives because the politicians who self-identify as conservatives are already so absurd that it is obvious to anyone who cares to watch. If you exaggerate what they do, it goes past the point of humor to simple childish insults. In many cases what they do is already so absurd that if you point it out to someone who isn't aware of it then they'll probably think that you're exaggerating to an absurd degree.
e.g. On liberal radio, they were calling the White House Press Corp a "bunch of whores." Sounds like a total hyperbole, right? Even if you extend the definition of 'whore' to include people who sell out a service that is supposed to have standards, it seems like an unfair characterization. Well, then it turns out that one of them is a whore. Not a metaphorical "sold out to the industry" whore. And actual has-sex-with-people-for-money whore. So the statement goes from being a childish insult to documentary record-keeping without having spent any time in the middle as humorous commentary.
So I figure, they can be mocked from a completly different direction. Reality.
Remember Pop-Up Video? A VH1 show in which music videos would be played and bits of trivia would be displayed in pop-up bubbles that explain bits of trivia and then tangents on the trivia.
What if we do a show like that with the Right-wing talk shows? The TV ones obviously, it would be a bit tough to do with pop-up audio on the radio.
As Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity is delivering their insane diatribe little pop-up bubbles would appear adding the stuff they left out, clearing up the stuff that they leave vague, providing context for what they misquote, or simply telling the truth where they tell lies.
Think about it. O'Reilly says of Barbara Boxer (after being corrected on the "truth or troops" question) "she said she (Condoleza Rice) didn't support the troops. She said "I think you let your respect for the president override your respect for the troops. Then she said "don't you impune my... respect for the troops and da d'da d'da." Then a little pop-up bubble would appear saying "actually Boxer did say "respect for the truth" and Rice said "impune my integrity."
Or Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would say to Bill, "You're a great guy with a lot of credibility, and a credit to your profession." Then Bill would say "thank you very much," and a pop-up bubble would appear saying "triumph then goes on to say "oh wait, we're in the no spin zone right? Well then, YOU SUCK!!!"
These days I don't think anything could be funnier than looking at reality juxtaposed with what Right-wingers say.