Response to Whit's Lead Blog

SNL is a show that I am very partial to. I like the sketch comedy on SNL, and (as much as I shouldn't) I buy into seeing the celebrity guests on the show. I also like parody, it's a clever take on comedy and has always been a genre that interested me. Music is also a good way to connect with audiences and I think it is done well on SNL every time they use it as a medium. This sketch is a simple poking through exaggeration, like Whit said. The difference is seriousness versus silliness in the skit is perfect. I really enjoyed the progression of the skit and how they incorporated Bruno Mars. Overall, I agree with Whit, and I think this sketch accomplished everything it set out to.

Aziz Ansari - Response to Charlotte's Post

As an Aziz Ansari in  Parks and Recreation fan, I totally relate to enjoying his type of humor and him in general as a person. This clip was not my favorite of his though! I do agree that it is an interesting outlook on marriage and I like the points he makes, but this does not scream funny to me. Stand-up is a genre of comedy that is either a hit or miss with me. When I'm in the right mood, around the right people, and in the right environment stand-up is something I really enjoy, otherwise it just doesn't hit my funny bone, if you will. I think Charlotte makes good points about Ansari's approach in this clip, but I just didn't find this one funny as much as it was a creative way to look at an old idea.

Nick's Lead Blog Response

As I watched the clip from Nick's blog post, (I watched the thing in it's entirety) I realized that John Oliver's entire point was to rile people up and piss people off. He even mentioned how someone might be infuriated about a clip he put in the show. I don't enjoy this kind of entertainment, but I understand why it works. I think if I was more invested in the NCAA I definitely would have found myself getting angry about the content, just like Oliver wants. He makes a good argument throughout with his use of statistics and first hand accounts. Personally, I try to avoid watching inherently angry clips like this; it makes me anxious. Most of Oliver's jokes worked and I did enjoy the beginning of the clip and a few of the jokes throughout, but like I said, this clip had few purposes other than inciting anger in the viewer. John Oliver himself spoke with anger. I'm not trying to say this is necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely isn't for me.

Response to Parker - The Office

This clip from The Office made me laugh out loud in the library, y'all.

I think Parker has good insight into why people think tv shows like The Office (and as he mentioned, Friends) are popular today. While I totally agree with his statement that it adds to the effect of a certain clip when the viewer has connection to the characters, the clip he picked didn't need that. I can confidently make that statement because while I have seen a few episodes of The Office I would definitely embarrass myself trying to identify the characters and their personality traits. I see the humor in the clip similarly to Parker as I like how they are making light out of a serious situation. I would have mentioned the dry humor here, unlike some clips we have watched in class that are a different genre of comedy, this is scripted and dry. This type of humor works because characters are taking themselves seriously while representing ridiculous situations. I appreciate this kind of sarcastic humor. Parker's post definitely appealed to my personal sense of humor!

My Perspective on Hobbes vs Hutchenson

While reading Hutchenson's criticism of Hobbes, a point that Hutchenson made stood out to me. He says, "If Mr. Hobbes be just, then, first there can be no laughter on any occasion where we machine comparison of ourselves to others, or of our present state to a worse state, or where we do not observe some superiority of ourselves above some other thing: and again, it must follow, that every sudden appearance of superiority over another must excite laughter, when we attend to it. If both these conclusions be false, the notion from whence they are drawn must be so too." (Reflections Upon Laughter 104) I really like the point Hutchenson makes here against Hobbes' theories about laughter and what people think is funny. Breaking down the paragraph, which I had to do to absorb most of the article, showed Hutchenson's skepticism of Hobbes superiority theory. He is basically saying that the theory of superiority is too broad, and at each instance where superiority is present aren't inherently funny (a point that Hobbes doesn't address). Also, he discounts the need for superiority in order for something to be funny. 

On the other hand, all three theories intertwine immensely from my experience. It is incongruous to relieve someone from superiority. Now, that statement is a stretch, but my point is this: it is ridiculously hard to determine the reason someone is laughing at any given situation, and all of these theories are representative of types of things that are funny and they interconnect. I think without the interconnectivity of the theories, comedy wouldn't flow the way it does in the genre. My sense of humor relies on the relationship between these theories. 

I've been thinking a lot about how important it is in sketch show comedy, especially today, for there to be reference to pop culture. I've found in the clips I've watched that I find it most funny when I understand the allusions because that's the reason they're there. It brings the audience in with familiarity and makes someone want to click on the clip when they see a celebrity they like in the sketch. This is slightly off-topic, but it goes along with the video below for sure.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn3r3QZ0asE

I used this clip in this blog post because it genuinely made me laugh out loud and it has evidence of the theories in it.