http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQDnXpSJQtA
The two actors in this clip are handing out an award for best reality/competition show. It seems that Colbert is going to hit on a controversial topic: people of Hollywood and the reality of reality TV. I don’t believe that the meaning would change unless the audience was a group of reality TV “actors” who didn’t realize it was a skit. It seems the argument is about how silly Hollywood, reality TV, and handing out golden statues is, but Stewart alerts the audience that this is much more than a rant about this. Colbert has a hidden agenda. He is angry that Barry Manilow won the Emmy for outstanding individual performance in a musical, variety or comedy over him. You can sense through Colbert’s tone that he is upset about something. While I think that Colbert could be a tad serious about being angry I don’t think that is the effect he wants to pass on to the audience. The audience is supposed to be amused and at the climax, highly entertained. It helps that Stewart acts like a puppet of the awards and continues to go against what Colbert is “preaching” about. Colbert’s argument is pretty specific, but doesn’t stick to one topic. Of course he is using a lot of sarcasm, which is typical of his acts. The arguments Colbert brings up are very extreme and use language that perhaps would be used during religious persecutions. So while Colbert uses this technique, even with a very stern demeanor, the audience must know that if the venue is not serious and he is a comedian they can laugh at this. This is pretty typical of an award show, but I think it that it makes it hard for someone to truly be serious about a cause or issue related to the business when the Discourse is comedy and humor most of the time.
1 comment:
I agree there is a certain amount of incongruity and humor that can be generated by being a comedian and mocking the award show that you are presenting at. You have to be able to do it right though. I agree with you, in that, what Stephen Colbert is doing here is done right. His use of sarcasm is kind of similar to a roast in that everyone realizes his intent is to purposefully make fun of the award show. I think that it is very effective and does bring a bit of levity to an event that is normally considered to be pretty long and, unless you really have an interest in watching people receive awards, boring.
I think that you did a fantastic job of analyzing the piece and I agree with a lot of the stuff that you pointed out… especially the part about Colbert likely being a bit upset about not winning. I also agree that in this case, with the comedic discourse used, there is no way that any of the arguments that Colbert points out can be taken seriously. But I do think that there are some instances in which comedy or sarcasm can highlight serious topics that you may have never realized existed before.
Post a Comment