Totally Tracey Online
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Are we missing the point of SOTU?
Recently, I posted this message to the TotallyTraceyUllmanClub Yahoo! Group, which has been actively discussing State of the Union. There are some members who really do not care for it and have been vocal about their dislike. Here's what I said:
Last night, some of my first remarks about episode 3 of State of the Union were that it was biting, incisive and insightful but that it wasn't necessarily hilarious (although there were indeed several humorous moments). Maybe the humor wasn't the point. Just maybe, it's the satire.
Wiktionary defines satire as "A literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. Humor is often used to aid this", as well as a satiric work. Humor is frequently involved, but it doesn't have to be.
Recall the segments from the first season where the woman who just had surgery is dumped on the street without sufficient recovery time and is living out of her car. Not particularly funny; in fact, you'd be outraged if that situation happened in real life, or you should be outraged. That was sharp satire. Last night's segments on J. K. Rowling and her ridiculously stringent enforcement of her intellectual property rights was also sharp satire, in my opinion. Certainly more humor there, IMHO (the stakes were far lower) -- ragging on a homeless man because he looks like Hagrid, come on. I remember Disney being similarly aggressive a few years ago with their cartoon characters, suing day care centers that had painted them on their walls.
If we focus on the humor or lack thereof in SOTU, then maybe we are missing out on the messages that Tracey is putting into her work. Sure, I'd love to laugh so hard I start coughing (well, maybe just before I start that), but if we're only looking for this, then we may be missing out on what she wants to say.
Just a few thoughts....
Last night, some of my first remarks about episode 3 of State of the Union were that it was biting, incisive and insightful but that it wasn't necessarily hilarious (although there were indeed several humorous moments). Maybe the humor wasn't the point. Just maybe, it's the satire.
Wiktionary defines satire as "A literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. Humor is often used to aid this", as well as a satiric work. Humor is frequently involved, but it doesn't have to be.
Recall the segments from the first season where the woman who just had surgery is dumped on the street without sufficient recovery time and is living out of her car. Not particularly funny; in fact, you'd be outraged if that situation happened in real life, or you should be outraged. That was sharp satire. Last night's segments on J. K. Rowling and her ridiculously stringent enforcement of her intellectual property rights was also sharp satire, in my opinion. Certainly more humor there, IMHO (the stakes were far lower) -- ragging on a homeless man because he looks like Hagrid, come on. I remember Disney being similarly aggressive a few years ago with their cartoon characters, suing day care centers that had painted them on their walls.
If we focus on the humor or lack thereof in SOTU, then maybe we are missing out on the messages that Tracey is putting into her work. Sure, I'd love to laugh so hard I start coughing (well, maybe just before I start that), but if we're only looking for this, then we may be missing out on what she wants to say.
Just a few thoughts....
Labels: satire, State of the Union
