Joe Perry is Back from Les Cantons de l'Est

My understanding is that, among the golden age dramatists, Aristophanes is considered the likeliest contributor to the philosophical underpinnings that contributed to the invention of Legos, hence the shoutout.
 
I agree. These distractions take away from the important vendettas that I'm keeping.
 
originally posted by Ice Cream Man:
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
Now that's Aristophanes!

Actually, it's Eddie Izzard. Who once played Socrates in the film Aristophanes: The Gods Are Laughing.

I'll take cake!

Of course it is. But isn't Izzard a clear comic descendant of Aristophanes (which is what I meant)?

I'll take the ice cream I guess.
 
Of course it is. But isn't Izzard a clear comic descendant of Aristophanes (which is what I meant)?

You could say that about any comedian as Aristophanes is considered by many to be the father of comedy. What commedian does not use ridicule, satire and caricature to comic effect?
 
Agreed. Cook is successful in his use of comic affectation more than effect.

-Eden (he does a pretty good impersonation of a comic though)
 
originally posted by Ice Cream Man:
Of course it is. But isn't Izzard a clear comic descendant of Aristophanes (which is what I meant)?

You could say that about any comedian as Aristophanes is considered by many to be the father of comedy. What commedian does not use ridicule, satire and caricature to comic effect?

Ridicule, satire, and caricature were not unique to or invented by Aristophanes. In fact they certainly predate him. ('Satire' comes from 'Satyr', the featured character in pre-Aristophanic plays that displayed plenty of these qualities, not to mention general lewdness.) Rather, he appears to be the father of a dramatic form that is basically anti-tragedy and became called Comedy. (We don't really know if he is the father, because his main rivals plays don't survive and Aristotle never weighs in on the question. I wish we could read Eupolis who seems to have been the most vicious political satirist of his day.)

Plenty of comedies and comedians create humor without Aristophanes' chief contribution to the form, namely the cast of bigwigs (politicians, war heroes, acclaimed artists, philosopher kings, etc.) who are dauntingly powerful in tragedy, yet hilariously idiotic in comedy.

Sit-coms are distinctly anti-Aristophanic (with some exceptions). Observational standup (like Steven Wright and ugh Dane Cook). Much of clowning. Much of skit comedy. One can try to split hairs, as there are exceptions everywhere, but the mainlines of these forms are not Aristophanic. This is why they are usually considered "Low" comedy - because they lack the foil of High Tragedy.

Izzard is operating in pretty orthodox territory: a character of High Tragedy (Star Wars) and god-like man (Vader) placed in a very human place (a cafeteria line) finds himself stymied by minutiae (needing a tray, having his name mistaken, etc.). That's why I called him a descendant.

Does that ruin the joke?
 
Does that ruin the joke?

I never liked the Vader lunch line joke anyway. Pretty cheap and obvious humor to me. The litle bit I've seen of Izzard has not made me laugh much. Maybe that's also why I was slow to warm to Monty Python. My daughter who is a fan of all things British loves Izzard so maybe he's an aquired taste.
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
originally posted by Ice Cream Man:
Of course it is. But isn't Izzard a clear comic descendant of Aristophanes (which is what I meant)?

You could say that about any comedian as Aristophanes is considered by many to be the father of comedy. What commedian does not use ridicule, satire and caricature to comic effect?

Ridicule, satire, and caricature were not unique to or invented by Aristophanes. In fact they certainly predate him. ('Satire' comes from 'Satyr', the featured character in pre-Aristophanic plays that displayed plenty of these qualities, not to mention general lewdness.) Rather, he appears to be the father of a dramatic form that is basically anti-tragedy and became called Comedy. (We don't really know if he is the father, because his main rivals plays don't survive and Aristotle never weighs in on the question. I wish we could read Eupolis who seems to have been the most vicious political satirist of his day.)

Plenty of comedies and comedians create humor without Aristophanes' chief contribution to the form, namely the cast of bigwigs (politicians, war heroes, acclaimed artists, philosopher kings, etc.) who are dauntingly powerful in tragedy, yet hilariously idiotic in comedy.

Sit-coms are distinctly anti-Aristophanic (with some exceptions). Observational standup (like Steven Wright and ugh Dane Cook). Much of clowning. Much of skit comedy. One can try to split hairs, as there are exceptions everywhere, but the mainlines of these forms are not Aristophanic. This is why they are usually considered "Low" comedy - because they lack the foil of High Tragedy.

Izzard is operating in pretty orthodox territory: a character of High Tragedy (Star Wars) and god-like man (Vader) placed in a very human place (a cafeteria line) finds himself stymied by minutiae (needing a tray, having his name mistaken, etc.). That's why I called him a descendant.

Does that ruin the joke?

Not at all. I've always maintained that a good long-winded explanation only adds to one's appreciation of any sort of humor.
 
Then let me explain. Your response is either funny because a) you're being insincere and thus pointing to the futility of joke explanation or b) you're being sincere and you're some kind of comic prophet. The tension between these extremes causes a layer of humor to build up like the gas in a shaken soda can. We know what will happen when some hapless soul stumbles along to open it.

Where's Kane?
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:

Where's Kane?

Present.

Just got back from my first jeebus of '09 with a visiting Christine Huang, whom you should know because she's a San Francisco treat and likes Bar Tartine!
 
Back
Top