Chris Bliss: Comedy is translation
wie Sie tun, machen, Film, Beispiel
16m 1sLänge
http://www.ted.com Every act of communication is, in some way, an act of translation. Onstage at TEDxRainier, writer Chris Bliss thinks hard about the way that great comedy can translate deep truths for a mass audience. Chris Bliss explores the inherent challenge of communication, and how comedy opens paths to new perspectives. TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http://www.ted.com/translate If you have questions or comments about this or other TED videos, please go to http://support.ted.com
Kommentare
-
Fun note... If you listen without video, it's Steve Martin giving the lecture.
-
@ 14:29- is the blonde near center of screen Kirsten wiig??
-
Perhaps I overstated my position. I'm not angry at the 30 Rock gang or at Jon Hamm; I'm just wondering why they thought that blackface was the best place to go for a joke. Not that they shouldn't skewer the bigots who once performed in blackface; I just want to know why they thought it was a good idea to recreate it. Recreating is a step beyond joking about. I say that nearly any appearance of blackface insults and oppresses because it cannot not resurrect a history of insult and oppression.
-
The jokes require no excuse & laughing at them doesn't make me bigoted. I'm laughing for the same reason 30 Rock performed it- BECAUSE the stereotype is over-the-top & skewers real bigots that enjoyed it back in the day. I'm not at all confused nor influenced by the joke. I think your position grants far too little respect to those that laugh, & you're so burdened with unearned guilt that every depiction of such things rends your heart. You might reconsider if it's my side that 'doesn't get it'.
-
Some sexism jokes actually give the audience an excuse to enjoy something sexist while still believing that they aren't sexist. To me, that duplicitous position might be worse than an overtly sexist joke. It's like when Jon Hamm did blackface on 30 Rock; clearly the idea was to make fun of the whole cultural apparatus that ever sanctioned it to begin with, BUT he still put on the burnt cork and became a vile stereotype. As for changing the channel, I agree, and I'm encouraging everyone to do it.
-
A 'sexist' joke makes females the butt. A sexism joke would poke fun at sexist beliefs- the opposite of a sexist joke. However, many a sexism joke is delivered as a sarcastic sexist joke...as when Tosh ends a bad driver joke saying "I'm talking to you, ladies". I again don't concede jokes influence our beliefs. Offense: So we're all equal but some less entitled to be offended? So much for equality. Again, free speech assures someone will be at some point. Don't like the joke? Change the channel.
-
I see where you're coming from, but I think you're leaving out two crucial things: first, it seems that you're assuming that a sexist joke makes fun of sexism, which in my experience is rarely the case. Generally, a sexist joke makes fun of women for an assumed inferiority to men. This confirms inequality in a patriarchal society. Second, you seem to assume that all offense is equal. A hypothetical deforestation joke is unlikely to trigger you the way a rape joke might trigger a rape survivor.
-
I say 'so what?' about jokes on many subjects, as they aren't automatically based on the teller's personal prejudice, but observation that such thinking can exist & it's fodder for a punchline. 'Get hurt': If jokes caused physical wounds, that would be 'hurt'. If we're talking about upsetting someone emotionally, video of trees falling in the Amazon 'hurts' me. Pro-Choice stickers 'hurt' pro-lifers. Free speech always risks offending & I do 'so what?' To avoid offending, say and do nothing.
-
As to your other comment, I was just about to say something similar. The respect is appreciated and mutual. As to causality, I've merely maintained that jokes can reinforce and confirm negative patterns of belief rather than productively challenging them. You suggested that such stimuli could be a last straw and I agreed. But I also think that certain jokes can hurt people. You write "so what?" about sexist jokes. Do you oppose other forms of sexism? If so, what makes jokes uniquely harmless?
-
No settling at all. I can worship Money and still enjoy my nephew's finger painting. Steaks and hamburgers. If the joke is sexist, so what? Doesn't make the author nor the laugher a sexist. How is it 'problematic' beyond being personally distasteful to you? If it isn't causal, it isn't a straw... so again...nothing but personal taste is at issue. When we started this, you were assigning causal factors to it...but now?
-
I think you might have missed what I said. A sexist joke doesn't have to CAUSE sexism to be a problem. A sexist joke IS ALREADY sexist, which means it's problematic. No causal proof necessary. As to your dislike of certain kinds of music, I can't tell whether you object to style or to content (but since you included jazz, which is generally instrumental, I suspect style). My dispute with Family Guy concerns its content, not the style of its animation, its pacing, etc. Why settle for 10%?
-
BTW- I should pay respect to you on the fact this back-n-forth has gone on this long without degrading into the usual YT flame war. It's nice to find a good argument, rare as it is. :)
-
1st sentence: With no proof of causality, it can't be labeled necessary. 1st & 2nd: That you don't like it isn't proof it's dangerous nor 2nd rate. In the end- YOU don't care for it, and there's nothing more to it. I can't stomach jazz, country nor rap 'music'. My view of it doesn't mean it's lousy. It's simply lousy to me. Family Guy, Tosh.0, Howard Stern all tickle me about 10% of the time. I remember when Carlin was railed against the same way. Today, few would say he was less than a genius.
-
If one's activist position resists sexism, racism, rape culture, and all forms of bigotry, structural inequality, and social injustice, then resisting sexist or rape-normalizing jokes would necessarily have to be part of that. But let me re-emphasize, I'm not an anti-Family-Guy activist. I just believe in spreading awareness of their content when the opportunity arises. Because even if there were nothing offensive or oppressive about their humor, it would still be second-rate.
-
Could we choose a less effective path to change than going after crude jokes? Would the raped prefer the rapist locked away or just forced not to tell any rape jokes? Why man the deck of a boat between the whale and the whaling ship when I can just push others to stop telling whale jokes. This is even weaker than the self-righteousness promoted by signing on-line petitions, making the signer think they 'did their part' to end 'the problem' without ever putting their pants on. Faux activisim.
-
Freud once divided jokes into "harmless wit" and "tendency wit," but then admitted that he couldn't think of any truly harmless jokes - they all had some "tendency," which meant that every joke has a butt. Every joke is probably a joke against something. This was my original point about the progressive power of humor - we can choose what our jokes will mock, and shouldn't we choose the realities of life or institutions of power which we wish to dismantle, or to humble, or to fight back against?
-
"Could" ...the video game debate. I *could" spontaneously combust tomorrow. How likely is it? Appropriate is both fluid & individual, as unique as each person. 'Normal', too. I've laughed at many dead baby jokes. They are absurd &, like a fart sound to a child, 'inappropriate' to others. As for 'normalizing', I still can't concede the joke/s has/have any such power. Appropriate, normal...might as well say beauty, too. Eye of the beholder. I wonder- do you know a truly funny & victimless joke?
-
I think that if you laugh, 1000 rape jokes could. I have no interest in banning Family Guy or Tosh.0, but I think that we should be cognizant of the kind of the hateful or violent or bigoted attitudes which they can promote and ask ourselves why we watch them and why we defend them. This isn't about being "oversensitive." I don't think that it's appropriate to normalize violence against women in a joke, so if I oppose such a joke, I'm not being oversensitive. I'm being appropriately sensitive.
-
"enjoyment...reinforces an embedded ideological pattern" So the pattern is pre-existing, not caused by the joke. I don't concede the straw is real. Tell me 1000 rape jokes, it won't change my ideology. The other part of Family Guy/TOSH 'humor' is they are intended to bother the over-sensitive, to drive off the hyper-critical who won't just change the channel and always want to be banning something. To stretch free speech. We're free to be offended. Mom said 'just ignore them'.
-
This was a great talk, especially since I dabble in stand up and improv out here in Hawaii in front of the tourists in Waikiki. Your joke, however, about the radical gay agenda has a similar setup and punch as that of Chris Rock's. Ya'll are probably just on the same 'wavelength' there on that issue. Thank you for the info here though.