Cunningham Muffins Commercial

[Alex]

For insights into the examination of what is funny I strongly recommend Steve Martin's new autobiography.

For what was essentially comedy of the stupid, he put a lot of examination and thought into what is funny, why it is funny, and how to reduce everything to that essence (whether you agree or disagree with the quality of the output). Plus it only takes about 3 hours to read and has some good stories from early Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm days.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I support Alex and Kevy in their assertion that Alex has a sense of humor. He's very funny. And yes, we keep saying this, but it's true: humor is subjective.

While we're on this litmus-test jaunt, will some of you watch this Murakami short film and tell me what you think? Warning, mildly NSFW and more than mildly creepy.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

As a writer, I could see that. But hearing a joke and then wondering about it and trying to figure out every nuance of it when one is not a writer or comedian or whatever is too Vulcan for me.

Well, yeaaaah, but the person who asked the question about drag (3894) is a writer, and the two who replied were a comedian and another writer.

[Gemini Cricket]

The Inochi commercials are funny.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

Well, yeaaaah, but the person who asked the question about drag (3894) is a writer, and the two who replied were a comedian and another writer.

Understood.
I just find it incredibly boring to dissect humor. I find it pointless.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by 3894

From a theoretical standpoint, are drag queens and drag kings really two sides of the same coin?

I'm guessing that drag kings are mostly politically motivated, whereas drag queens just want to dress like Cher.

While the article at Slate didn't say much about the culture of kinging, the video did show some of the other acts that were there that night. None of them seemed "polictially motivated" to me.

[Alex]

Completely out of context (I don't know if these are part of a larger body examining Inochi that would change how I respond), but I find them visually interesting and topically thought provoking (Inochi means life and the connection of coming alive with the onset of sexual and romantic maturity with the way it makes you feel different).

Entertaining, yes. But I wouldn't say it is funny.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

(I first saw it mostly out of context, too - they are playing at the Murakami exhibit in LA, and the only other reference was a sculpture of the robot in the films.)

And, you know, I don't exactly find them funny either - but I do get a bit of that "uncomfortable" chuckle that, if it kept going, might turn into genuine laughter.

[3894]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

While the article at Slate didn't say much about the culture of kinging, the video did show some of the other acts that were there that night. None of them seemed "polictially motivated" to me.

I could have phrased that better. The drag kings seem to be interested in finding out how/if society treats them differently as a man.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

I suspect Ionesco would not likely appeal to you now, either. Absurdism is a love-it-or-hate-it thing, I think, and likely a lifelong opinion. I asked because I was wondering if your distaste for this had to do with your general preference for high art - and Ionesco is one of the few absurdists who is given that distinction.

Though... I've always thought Arrested Development hinged a little bit on absurdism from time to time. (30 Rock certainly does, and though I was thinking of suggesting it to you, my understanding now of your preference for absurdity causes me to retract any previous suggestion. No 30 Rock for you! )

It's not a blanket thin with me at all. I LOVE Dada and Surrealism. Duchamp was a master of the absurd. I think what doesn't appeal to me with "Muffins" (as well as Python, et all) is the lack of subtly. Humor is a great deal more enjoyable for me if you have to be fully engaged to comprehend it (or you may miss it). When it is "in your face" I just don't find it amusing or engaging.

My recent experience with "Sweeny" is a good example. Cohen's in your face, over the top character was completely distracting and took me out of the experience of the film as a whole. I felt like I was watching a fine film with a commercial for Cohen's "talent" inserted into the midst of it.

I have similar issues with Jim Carrey in his comedic roles. "Unfortunante Events" would have been MUCH more enjoyable if Carrey was a part of the ensemble and not a "look at me" character. (Jerry Lewis was probably the first hatred I developed for this type of humor.)

But, as will all things I like or dislike, there are always exceptions. For every album of quirky pop music I don't like (TMBG, etc) there's a Belle and Sebastian in the mix that I adore.

As for Ionesco, it might be interesting to see if it appeals to me at this point in life when my preferences are much more developed and my knowledge base quite a bit greater than it was a 17 or even 23.