4/27 THE GRAND FINALE?!!????????!?!?!

ITS' NOT SO GRAND IS IT WHEN YOU HAVE 2 MINUTES TO EXPLAIN 5 MONTHS OF RESEARCH IS IT?!?!?!

HOWEVER. I think this is legit-ish I dunno. It's very difficult to put all of the work into a "final phase" per say because I think this very blog kind of IS the final phase already? That sounds weird let's go into detail.



So my project was totes about humor and identity and the Internet and how having an online presence is a super easy catalyst when it comes to being humorous. My "thesis" per say was that the power of technology allows for an increased power of expression... Increasing the things people find funny and the capacity for people to BE funny.



This blog proves that that statement is true. It is my blog. It is not like any other blog because it is mine. yes.  Individualism is funny. But while I've been preaching that YES YES THIS IS GREAT! There is another side that must be considered indeed!



This is a very unromantic view of comedy. This is a very unromantic view of what humor is supposed to be. By unromantic I mean it in the Romanticism during the Renaissance way. Ya see the Romantics believed that EVERYTHING WAS CONNECTED. THAT BEETLE. THAT TATTOO ON YOUR WRIST. THE MOON. ALL CONNECTED IN ONE BEAUTIFUL UNIVERSE! This is so unamerican though. In American society at least, everything has its little box. Beetles have nothing to do with the moon.

Comedy however is one of the few things that have some semblance of romance in it. Not as much as the silent film era where the banana peel gag was universally funny... But it still has the same "let's all laugh at the same thing" stigma. There is still a universality to it. But my theory that anyone can be funny suggests that even this is changing.

Let's take a look back at the definition of comedy established by that TED guy from earlier in meh blog. Humor is about benign violations. But with individualism comes all sorts different emotions as to what is benign and what counts as a violation. I deduce that being a comedian is becoming more difficult because it is becoming more difficult to accommodate every individual.

Will humor become a more personalized endeavor? I dunno I'm not a psychic why would you even ask me that question? Because I've predicted things correctly before?!? Touche.

But yeah. My project is a thing and it exists. Go Frolic.


*Unit 3*

4/14 GrapHIC nOVELS DOEE

So Italian.

So I read Interiorae, a graphic novel by Gabriella Giandelli

It's a weird one. But I liked it.

Death is treated very weirdly in this thing.

It's basically about an imaginary rabbit who's job is to be an eavesdropping little turd towards everyone in the apartment complex. His boss is this wierd Satan blob thing that's in the basement of the apartment that likes to feed on people's dreams and collects their secrets as well... Yeah.

Yes, this is the Satan Blob

There are barely any rules in this book a bunch of weird stuff happens and like... Just read it you'll see.

THE CHARACTERS

The dopest part of all of this are how all of the people in the apartment are characterized cuz they're so insanely REAL. The contrast between real and surreal is very interesting and this book doesn't play around. They are directly linked and I don't knwo how I like feel about that lol.

COLORS

This book is incredibly dark for the whole thing and the pretty colors don't come until the end. It's like the characters that reside in the apartment are stuck in some kind of perpetual purgatory that is somehow resembling real life and nobody gets to face true ascention until the end of the book.

Or maybe it's not that deep and this graphic novel is just trying too hard to be artsy. In this case I actually think it's the former, and I'm pretty cynical... you be the judge.

I read the whole thing. It's a good book. Read it peeps.

*Unit 3*

4/7 How 2 Documentary Review

Alright, so I couldn't stick around for the first half of Watch Kids Go ta School: The Movie... But I DID recently watch a documentary titled The Two Escobars. It's about Pablo Escobar, the drug guy who was really freakin good at being a drug guy; and Andres Escobar, a soccer guy, who was part of the Colombian National soccer team that went to the world cup. And the relationship between Pablo's drugs and Andres's lives. Cuz the drug money was being turned into soccer money and the players were hella good too. It was an ESPN documentary too so I was very impressed cuz I am not a sports man.

Anyways this was the review I read

http://www.avclub.com/review/the-two-escobars-46374

I was surprised when I was searching for and reading reviews for the documentary because they focused mainly on explaining what is happening and the climate of the documentary. Whenever I look at reviews for a fiction movie, sure they explain the plot but then they usually get super technical. Fictional movie reviews are like "Oh I didn't like how they did ______ because it took away from the believability" or whatever. These reviews were all commenting on the actual message of the documentary and evaluating how plausible the message was.

I'm tellin ya we're all still puritans. We're much less harsh on documentaries cuz they actually happened but if it's fictional things can still turn into a version of "CRAZY UNGODLY WITCHCRAFT".

So I guess the rules for a documentary review would be:

1. Have a thorough understanding of what is being documented so you can determine if the argument being made is valid regarding the situation

2. Determine if the argument is argued well. If the connections make sense. I'm Ira Glass STAY. WITH US.

3. And ya know what? Tie in the technicalities too. Was the documentary actually well made? Because that will definitely affect the other two points I made. Treat it as equally as fiction, because the making of it requires just as much artistry in my opinion.

*Unit 3*