That's Not Funny Mike Celestin Analysis

The implications of this assert that parody is permissible and let comedians to preserve their expressive

People often think that comedians have a straight forward job: they practically just have to joke about a topic and make people laugh. But not many realize the brutality comedians have to face when they are “forced” to change their acts according to the setting and diverse range of their audience. In the article “That’s Not Funny”, the author Caitlin Flanagan, explains on how comedians face an uphill talk when they perform in colleges and how they have to change their scripts to make sure they don’t offend students on the basis of gender, religion etc. Colleges are paying comedians big money and that’s the main reason comedians still perform even when they can’t express themselves freely through comedy. In this essay, I will explore how Caitlin argues about the unjust conditions interested comedians face who want to perform in college campuses. Caitlin builds the credibility of her work by stating strong and valid points, different types of arguments and rhetoric situations.

Humorists are often seen as insignificant contributors of society. People consider humorists no more than just “entertainers”, willing to make fun of anything in order to make a crowd laugh, however, has the audience ever contemplated why humorists are the some of the only people who are allowed to critique anything that crosses their mind without consequences? Alain de Botton, claims the vital role of humorist is, “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” I agree with Alain de Botton’s claims, that humorists do hold an important role in society, which is far more than to entertain. They break the ice on delicate topics, communicating the messages to society. Political cartoons and the Colbert

Modern society allows humorists to touch upon offensive topics without receiving much criticism. As Alain de Botton claimed in his 2004 book, Status Anxiety, humorists’ role is not merely to entertain but “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” De Botton’s argument proves legitimate. Many humorists, such as cartoonists and television hosts, decide to use their humor as a tool to prove an idea or express a belief that cannot be voiced candidly in public.

Shows such as Impractical Jokers, where four lifelong friends compete against each other in absurd challenges, do not connect to current events. Still, as a viewer, I have spent many weekdays watching countless hours of Impractical Jokers as a way to relieve stress from the academic rigor I endure. Although shows like Impractical Jokers do not illustrate sensitive topics, I find shows similar humorous and a good distraction from the real world. The chief aim of shows like Impractical Jokers is not to state “dangerous or impossible” messages, but to give the audience a good

In Status Anxiety, author de Botton correctly claims that humorists are expected to not only entertain their audience, but to make statements about controversial events that may be too sensitive to say directly and causally present them in a way that is easy for the public to understand. This is demonstrated through various forms of media such as television shows and political cartoons.

Coco Fusco and Gomez-Pena’s satirical piece was designed to exhibit “[the] Western concept of the exotic, primitive Other[s]” and even implicitly demean how Westerners view the “Others”(143) . While Fusco’s live performance was the actual reactions of the audience, but Fusco’s video “The Couple in the Cage” had other factors that gave the watchers a different view of the satirical piece. But, Fusco does not examine the role of her editorial decisions which leading the watchers into her own bias views. Fusco could have used different editorial methods or even forgo any edits of her live performance avoiding any biases when viewers watch “The Couple in the Cage.”

Humor has become manifested into nearly all aspects of the secular world. Whether it be in comics, writings, or television, some form of comedy is sure to be seen on a regular basis. It seems the world today depends on a good laugh every now and then, and Alain de Botton argued the purpose of this in his book Status Anxiety. He concluded that humorists are more than just a form of entertainment; They "convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly". These men and women are granted some degree of leeway to speak freely and candidly on ultimately any subject for the preservation of societal stability. Their representation of public sentiment results in the people feeling as if what they long to say is finally being heard on a larger platform. Humorists serve the vital role of being a true reflection of public opinion; however, they are not immune to

Various television shows have pushed boundaries to create positive differences in social perception of minorities, but only few have had the power and influence to make a noteworthy impact on American culture. Television Comedy has been able to cleverly impact acceptance of American Culture boundaries for years on end. From the show “Good Times” all the way to “The Office”, comedy has been an effective way of creating positive perceptions and acceptance of all different kinds of views on our society. An easily countable number of academic texts give evidence to Black-watched, Black-targeted television narratives. (Marc, 1997). Racially directed comedy television shows have, in my opinion, have been one of the most prevalent types of television

Over the past 70 years, there has been great change in comedy especially for African-Americans and other Non-American races. During the early days of comedy, many of these people were considered to be minorities during that era. This influenced many comedic stints of that time which over the years have evolved to catch up with the modern day society. Some of these include the humor, the topics discussed and also epithets. Over the years many comedians have emerged from ‘this’ group of minorities and have played a major factor in the evolution of comedy itself and how the different minorities have evolved from being quiet to playing a great part in show casing their lifestyle. Compared to the past, there has been a great change in comedy from the old times of Dick Gregory to the modern times of Aziz Ansari.

This essay is going to discuss about racism in comedy and in addition to that it is also going to look at whether it is acceptable for comedians to use certain racial words for example when black comedians use the word “Nigger”. Also it is going to look at how different audience put up with this kind of material, but first of all it is going to look at the actual word itself and where in the blue marble that we call earth it originated from.

The book utilizes a wide variety of primary sources of films from the 1920s onward. Leff and Simmons also use many newspaper and magazine articles that analyze censorship in films. They utilize these sources to illustrate examples of how films went from having

It is not unseasonable to believe that because stereotypes are appearing so commonly in comedy, they will reinforce those stereotypes rather than help society rid itself from them. Extinguishing stereotypes is impossible. Researchers have determined that the creation of stereotypes is a natural function of the brain (Paul, par. 2). In attempt to make light of a problematic issues, comedians use stereotypes to denounce stereotypes. The first thing that we should understand is that comedy is comedy. This does not mean that it should not be taken seriously as frequently advised. Comedy should be embraced and takes seriously but not in the

Satire is constantly evolving in order to maintain with the times. As technology, culture and humanity change and grow, satire is forced to grow with it. Satire of our modern time is more likely to be found on our phones than on print, more likely on a television than a telegram. By merging with pop culture, in forms of Family Guy and Comedy Central news shows, these forms of satire are able to stay relevant. But, despite the change in medium, the purpose of satire and effect of satire holds true. Modern satire, just as that of past satire, sheds light on the problems of our society through ridicule and mockery, without reinforcing and further cementing the stereotypes and prejudices they are trying to expose.

Today, comedy news shows are becoming progressively more popular, and in so, becoming a new source of information – which may, or may not, be a positive consequence. Most comedians twist the truth in order to connect to people and make them laugh. The article “A Serious Business: What Can Comedy Do?” suggests some comedians “use logic to make painful things make sense” (O’Hara 108). Satirical comedy acts as a relief mechanism in that it comforts people that may be wary about a certain subject, especially in the realm of politics. Similarly, Peter McGraw and Joel Warner discuss how comedy can act as a coping mechanism. The authors conclude that “activists all over the world have been using comedy as a form of political protest” (McGraw & Warner 147). Iain Ellis writes about how political satirists do more than just deliver jokes, they use satire “to expose, ridicule, and–implicitly–call for action and change” (Ellis 152). Ellis contends that comedy can make a difference by its constant presence in our daily lives. Socrates, Plato, and even shows like South Park believe that humor is a way to persuade others. One of the most effective expressions of humor to affect social change has been the inclusion of satire. Although humor often provides people a welcome escape from the burdens of their daily lives, the satirical comedy deconstructs social issues in various ways as a means to persuade the