Chris

Idle Thumbs 152: Piercing the Fourth Dimension

Recommended Posts

There's a million questions and comments I want to make about this podcast, but I'll just stop at saying that this was an excellent, excellent one and that the 'Post South Park cast' is a thing that needs to happen.
OK, I'll just say this one thing: it's fascinating to see how the other interest you've got in your lives are informing, interacting or contradicting with the way that you see and make games. :tup:
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this is what it felt like growing up in the west. The Simpsons, Friends, and dozens of other shows were generally on during my formative years. These were series that made hundreds if not thousands of cultural references throughout their runs. When I was very young I wasn't reading Poe, but I could give you a plot synopsis of The Tell-Tale Heart thanks to Lisa's Rival. I hadn't read Dickens but The Muppets Christmas Carol gave me the gist of that story. In the vast majority of cases my first introduction to cultural ideas wasn't their original sources but through references, or references to references. In some cases it was immediately clear that "oh, this is like that thing I've heard of" but in others it was years before I found out what a joke was in reference too. I'm sure we've all had the experience of watching something from our childhood and saying "Wow, I didn't get that joke at the time". It doesn't matter if you're from Europe or North America as far as I can tell. Also, I have no idea who Carol Channing is. The name sounds familiar but I couldn't tell you what she's known for. That's not just you.

 

If you're a Thumbs contemporary, that's because Carol Channing is well before our time. It's like if you didn't know about Milton Berle or Jack Benny. Famous actors, maybe even influential, but not institutions beyond themselves? I'm probably making a terrible misstep with examples here. 40 years from now someone makes a Julia Roberts joke and a 20-something says "Why do people make all these Julia Roberts jokes?! I don't understand."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the ultimate irony, I think, of the people (including the many infesting this thread like a bunch of racist roaches) who think they're fighting on the side of comedians when they take on "social justice warriors" like Danielle or myself or many other regulars here. They think that comedy needs to be protected against the evil forces of opinionated naysayers who want to keep it from making all the choicest jokes about minorities or whoever, but in reality that's the last thing comedy needs. What comedy needs is to be like Eddie Murphy's 80's standup minus the shit that 20 years later strikes us as vile.

 

That would be an extremely short standup routine, and ten years from now it would likely be even shorter. It seems the arc of the moral universe bends toward more shit striking us as vile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this is what it felt like growing up in the west. The Simpsons, Friends, and dozens of other shows were generally on during my formative years. These were series that made hundreds if not thousands of cultural references throughout their runs. When I was very young I wasn't reading Poe, but I could give you a plot synopsis of The Tell-Tale Heart thanks to Lisa's Rival. I hadn't read Dickens but The Muppets Christmas Carol gave me the gist of that story. In the vast majority of cases my first introduction to cultural ideas wasn't their original sources but through references, or references to references. In some cases it was immediately clear that "oh, this is like that thing I've heard of" but in others it was years before I found out what a joke was in reference too. I'm sure we've all had the experience of watching something from our childhood and saying "Wow, I didn't get that joke at the time". It doesn't matter if you're from Europe or North America as far as I can tell. Also, I have no idea who Carol Channing is. The name sounds familiar but I couldn't tell you what she's known for. That's not just you.

 

Maybe it's just me, but for me1: referential cartoons did a lot more than make me go "Ohhhhh, I get it now." 

 

For example: those Looney Tunes episodes that brought in caricatures of famous Hollywood actors from the '40s and '50s or the ones that were entirely based on an opera.  And then watching Tiny Toon Adventures concurrently, which were doing episodes that referenced the Looney Tunes episodes that referenced the Hollywood actors and operas.  Also Tiny Toons doing Deliverance.  Or Eek! the Cat doing Apocalypse Now, etc.

 

When I finally got around to seeing the actual works in reference, I found myself naturally inured since I knew the story or the characters but I could also be equally repulsed.  i.e. The way in which art house cinema is portrayed points to the "utterly ridiculous" nature of the medium, and bred something of an anti-intellectual stance in me.  So when I first saw something like Last Year at Marienbad, I couldn't help but connect it to the dozens of cartoons that used the tired trope of European art cinema being ridiculous and pretentious and 4th-wall breaking.2

 

For a child there's not much difference between absurd humor and referential humor; both appear illogical.  I learned to laugh at things that made no sense, which I think is valuable!  But it also gave me a starting point for my perspective on a lot of culture that I'd later gain a greater understanding.  Thankfully my life and my brain chemistry have been such that I can sometimes spot and acknowledge prejudices, but there will always be those lingering ghosts of cartoon characters whispering their world views into my ears (and dropping anvils on me)...

 

 

1 - Opinion segment from the show Comedy Bang Bang 

- Super common one referencing weird love stuff, usually incest or cross species.  Arrested Development more recently referencing the former with "Les Cousins Dangereux", Looney Tunes the latter with skunk-cat love.  So I figured that when I finally saw a French film that dealt with that issue I'd think it stupid, but then Louis Malle's Murmer of the Heart came along and it's easily one of my favorite films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be an extremely short standup routine, and ten years from now it would likely be even shorter. It seems the arc of the moral universe bends toward more shit striking us as vile. 

 

I don't know, we used to find homosexuals and interracial marriage pretty vile. There's this clip I saw once from the BBC of a reporter going into a gay club and telling the viewer how repulsed he was at this disgusting display of guys in sensible clothes dancing with one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me one the big takeaway was that referential media can have implicitly problematic requirements for cultural literacy.  Additionally, failing to properly educate while employing these rich cultural reference can be dangerous.  The discussion reminds me of some of the talk when Dave Chappelle walked away from his show.

 

I think there are some deep dangers with employing protection from anything considered too culturally rich or referential.  We want more depth not less.  Additionally, we don't want to be condescending to an audience and only rely on what we assume they can digest.  Still, I appreciated hearing some strong sentiments relating to responsibility with works that contain high cultural literacy.  Again, it caused me to pause and think about something I often don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be an extremely short standup routine, and ten years from now it would likely be even shorter. It seems the arc of the moral universe bends toward more shit striking us as vile.

Not even close. In addition to the stuff Merus points out, think about tolerance of other religions and cultures, women speaking their mind, rock music, men with long hair, catching a thief and not chopping off their hands or putting them to death, witches, women wearing pants...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "archie bunker problem" in broad strokes is that something intended as satire/ironic bigotry gets taken by some people (presumably, as evidenced by the Colbert situation, possibly on both sides of the bigot/non-bigot line, though specifically with reference to Bunker I think I've only seen it referring those in sympathy with the expression of bigoted sentiment) as being sincere. God that parenthetical was awful, but I'm on a phone. Je ne regrette rien.

 

 

The Archie Bunker problems it that, in the 70's, the creators of All in the Family were doing their best to create a relatively progressive show that tackles social issues alongside the modern day-to-day of what it meant to be an urban family.  Archie was a curmudgeon and a representation of a stale way of thinking -- he made off-color comments about other races, didn't trust anyone other than a typical white male and felt that women were beneath him -- and for an audience member who was "with it," he was the butt of the joke. BUT Archie also became this mouthpiece for people who, in real life, lived and thought like he did -- he was a major media representation of themselves and because they empathized with his race/class/gender position, they thought Archie was just great. Archie isn't a bad guy but HE is the butt of the joke -- but for someone who isn't in the position to recognize that he's actually aspirational (which was never the intent of the character). FWIW, I believe All in the Family walked this line deftly (and I actually think South Park does too) (ie: I think the "problem" is less of a problem that needs fixing within the text but more of an inevitable outcome of trying to make progressive media that reaches all socio-economic political classes).

 

VIDEO GAMES!

 

 

 

So I know this is super late, but the "comedy school" email on the most recent ep. reminded me that I had actually posted here. Whoops. Just wanted to say thanks, and that it makes a lot more sense now! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Would it be irresponsible of me to write a magical realism short-story about a home-owner who decides to smoke ceiling-mold and enters a Narnia-like?

I can be a pretty compelling author and I don't want anyone to poison themselves because I demonstrated my skillz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first post on here :D

 

anyway.. I found the section where you guys talk about saying "we've got customers!" in place of "We've got COMPANY!" really funny, as my brother and I have our own version.

 

I think it started when we played a lot of Rainbow Six: Vegas Co-op Terrorist hunt. We'd refer to the flanking AI terrorists as "Backdoor Babes".

Crude and childish I know but it still has us laughing and somewhat eases the tension of being flanked by an opponent :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, we used to find homosexuals and interracial marriage pretty vile. There's this clip I saw once from the BBC of a reporter going into a gay club and telling the viewer how repulsed he was at this disgusting display of guys in sensible clothes dancing with one another.

 

 

Not even close. In addition to the stuff Merus points out, think about tolerance of other religions and cultures, women speaking their mind, rock music, men with long hair, catching a thief and not chopping off their hands or putting them to death, witches, women wearing pants...

 

These are all subjects Eddie Murphy might've included in Raw that are no longer cool/funny to you (I think he and Pryor were always on the right side of interracial marriage though). You're just making my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are all subjects Eddie Murphy might've included in Raw that are no longer cool/funny to you (I think he and Pryor were always on the right side of interracial marriage though). You're just making my point.

...? I'm not really sure Eddie Murphy could've included a bit about how we should obviously chop off the hands of thieves in Raw without it being a joke. Pretty much nobody has believed that for hundreds of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point's basically the same as the moral guardians who say that morality has broken down because our standards are so much more lax. It's really not the case; the range of behaviours we find acceptable has just shifted over time, some things that were acceptable are not, and things that weren't acceptable now are. High hemlines! People reading for fun! Satanism! Changing careers several times! Mixing with the opposite gender! Crossdressing in America!

 

That last one is a particularly good point because crossdressing being a terrible thing is relatively recent; it's not as potent a terror in the UK, where it's been a stage tradition for centuries, and many other cultures have been far less worried about it overall. Which says something, I think, about moral standards, and how they're constantly in flux and peculiar to every society. Finding some things morally repugnant does not mean that the fun police will soon be on their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to quickly add my appreciation of Ms. Riendeau's appearances on this show and the prior ones.  Charming as 'Remo (everyone's gotta have a favorite, right?) and brings a lot to the show, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danielle and Patricia Hernandez have been doing some late night twitch streams on Patricia's twitch channel that are pretty fun.

It's a neat tag team thing where Danielle reads the chat out to Patricia so she can respond to chat while continuing to drive.

They've done binfinite burial at sea and walking dead season 2 so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that always interests me about the Archie Bunker problem is that All in the Family was itself a remake of an earlier British sitcom called 'Till Death Us Do Part, which was written by Johnny Speight and had a working-class Londoner called Alf Garnett in the Archie Bunker role. Like Bunker, Garnett was prejudiced against pretty much everyone (although his daughter was dating an actual Communist, rather than a McGovernite Democrat, reflecting the greater diversity of European politics at the time, when the far right and the far left were still actively recruiting), and expressed the prejudice in a way Speight assumed everyone would understand was not intended to be admirable or praiseworthy.

 

And, just like Norman Lear, the creator of All in the Family, Johnny Speight was shocked and appalled that people uncritically celebrated Alf Garnett's racism and sexism (and later homophobia) and saw him as a plain-speaking hero. So, by the time Norman Lear was writing All in the Family, he already had an example of exactly the Archie Bunker problem, while he was creating Archie Bunker.

 

That's interesting to me. It's possible, of course, that he saw 'Till Death Us Do Part without knowing the context of its reception, or that he had more (misplaced) faith in the American audience...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been thinking about what terms would go on the Idle Thumbs banned phrases list.

 

"bespoke"

"solid two count"

"gross"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been thinking about what terms would go on the Idle Thumbs banned phrases list.

 

"bespoke"

"solid two count"

"gross"

 

"Tremendous"

"Feels really crisp"

"Super good"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How hard would it be to make a twitter-bot for each of them, and have them reply just to each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now