I found it really interesting to note how much effort is put into breaking down the concepts of parody, or play for the purposes of this chapter when, these thing are in fact, inherent to human nature. As Brenda rightly pointed out, parody and satire have a long and well established history with human behavior. What is also interesting is a parallel history of humans needing to side line, or bracket satire as particular, or even sub-culture mechanism, when, in fact, it seems to be the medium we are most receptive to.
Consider all the way back to Shakespeare, considered perhaps one the greatest authors of all time. There is almost no work of his which does not contain some black humor, or biting wit which brings the situation home. More important than that content, is its source; in Shakespeare's case, this role is virtually always assigned to the 'fool' or jester. The best example can be found in the Henrys' where the character of Falstaff is known to contain the greatest pearls of wisdom from the audience's perspective, yet is sidelined by both the author and the actors as a minor phenomenon, not worthy of too much attention.
This tradition seems to carry through into the present, with media and tactical media being its newest iterations. In this chapter the author cites how efforts like "Revolution USA" stir up all this energy and people taking on parody and satire and generating a mass of content centered around it, yet still feels the need to ultimately ask the question 'does it work?' Yes one can always play devil's advocate and draw on the point that if W. was reelected then the tactic doesn't work, however, we should really be looking at the intent of satire and using that to assess before we pass judgment.
From Shakespeare all the way up to Denny Crane on Boston Legal and Stephen Colbert, satire is tone, or mode of delivery that is used to alter the mainstream flow of thought. Perhaps it suddenly shifts to camera angle to a view or dark corner which had previously been given no light and little examination. It is lease a vehicle to impact direct change, than it is to deliver a swift, sharp shock... get them laughing then slip the knife in between their ribs. If that is the scale we chose to measure parody in tactical media by, then it is truly thriving. As Graham Meikle’s comments suggest, tactical media can communicate ideas to the wider public, draw attention to issues and raise important questions, and all because it is adopting a slightly different tone than the mainstream, and because we the public have been largely programmed to regard the data from those sources as non-threatening.
On that note I'd like to briefly revisit an example used in a previous class and mate it with another, satirical delivery. The Fox interview of Christopher Hitchens highlights some very harsh coments towards the reverend Falwell. Whatever one's belief's about Falwell are, there is a certain instantaneous reaction to what Hitchens says, and the way the whole format was set up. On the other hand, a comedian named Lewis Black routinely incorporates comments about Fawell into his set. Watch Hitchens, then watch Black and question, are they really saying anything different, yet whose message am I more apt to recieve, and does it leave me with any questions or concerns. This example is, I feel, at the very heart of a parody discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment