The film “Punishment Park”, directed by Peter Watkins, is a mock-documentary taking place during the Vietnam War. In this movie, protesters are arrested and forced to choose between prison or participating in Punishment Park, a desert where prisoners are hunted by armed national guard members. The film follows both court hearings and the park itself to show how the government treated political dissent at the time. The film uses an extreme use of irony to show that the way the government claims to uphold democracy while violating people’s rights to do so. The extreme hyperbole of hunting protestors in a desert exaggerated real fears people had at the time about government control and political persecution. The documentary stylings make the film seem rooted in reality, playing off of the very real fear of the government protesters felt and still feel. Punishment Park criticizes the way that the government uses fear to justify oppression and suspending civil liberties in times of political tension in a way that is still very resonant and just as important today. Punishment Park uses satire to provoke its audience and emit an intense response in the viewer by using realism and a hyperbolic, exaggerated premise to make the audience reflect on the actions of government to take freedoms away in times of tension.
Raise the Red Lantern, directed by esteemed director Zhang Yimou, tells the story of a young woman in the early 1900s who is forced to marry into a wealthy family as the heir’s fourth wife. The entire film, almost exclusively shot in the family’s estate, showcases impressive costume and set design, but its camera work is particularly notable.
The camera work is incredibly deliberate and carefully placed. Above all, elements like symmetry and the height of the camera are used to exaggerate the imposing nature of the grounds where the movie takes place. Doors and courtyards are almost always directly in the middle of the frame when visible, and although the roofs are a bit more architecturally complex, they’re still symmetrically framed whenever possible. I think it adds to the central narrative theme of an oppressing routine and its effects on the residents of the estate. The complete lack of movement also helps demonstrate this feeling and put focus on the meaning of the framing of any given shot.
The first deviation from this standard (or the first one that I noticed, at least) is when Songlian witnesses Meishan’s murder on the rooftop. For the first time in the entire movie, the camera begins to move to track her. It’s also not just moving in a smooth motion–it’s a handheld camera that shakes with her as she stumbles and begins to hyperventilate. Although the movement is not overly exaggerated, the fact that there’s been none up to this point makes it particularly jarring to watch and conveys the feeling of pure adrenaline and panic that Songlian is experiencing. Choices like these are what make the camera work in Raise the Red Lantern meaningful and powerful in how it conveys the feelings of the characters to the audience.
House of Leaves is a 2000 novel by Mark Z Danielewski that transcends many conventions of genres and storytelling. Presented as a story within a story within a story (possibly within another story), the core of the book follows the Navidson family’s fresh start in a new house that takes a turn when they discover that one room of the house seems to defy basic logic: it’s three quarters of an inch bigger on the inside than the outside. From there, the house begins to change in stranger and more ominous ways as doors and hallways start mysteriously appearing, leading to dark and endless corridors of nothingness.
House of Leaves has been labelled as many genres by many dedicated readers, ranging from a Lovecraftian horror story to a heartbreaking tale of romance to an encyclopedic novel. However, I think that House of Leaves is also a satire of academic literature.
The book is (mostly) presented as a manuscript of a series of videos about the house and an academic analysis of the content, which utilizes a plethora of footnotes and accurate citations of completely fictional authors. The cited authors often contradict each other, just like actual academic literature, except these contradictions are never resolved. Rather, the academic segments dance around the actual meaning of the art it’s analyzing. Eventually, it gets dizzying to read, especially as the book starts to strongly lean into elements of ergodic literature. A common sentiment shared by fans of the book is often that the footnotes and citations eventually become a chore to read through, as the real reward of the book is learning more about the story of the house and the family inside–the reader begins to value the art more than the detailed analysis accompanying it. In this way, Danielewski is able to convey his argument of the ridiculousness of academic literature and how it can sometimes retract from the art rather than adding to it.
House of Leaves accurately mimics real academic literature to argue that much of it is overly convoluted and ultimately more meaningless than it appears to be. Satire doesn’t have to be funny or only satire to convey a message using satirical elements, and by blending multiple genres alongside those satirical elements, Danielewski is able to tell a well-rounded story with strong messaging and a deeply captivating plot.
In Raise the Red Lantern, one of the most prominent choices made by the director is choosing to never show the Master’s face clearly. Throughout the two-hour film, his face is never shown clearly. I actually looked it up to make sure, and I couldn’t find a single picture of his face, nor a mention of his face ever being shown somewhat clearly. All of the frames with him either obscure his face with an object, are filmed from the back, and/or are too far to see his face.
By hiding his face, the film shifts from an individual villain to instead highlighting how the real power comes from the system of rules, rituals, and traditions that govern the household. This is especially noticeable in that the system operates perfectly without him present. Throughout the film, the master is often away from the compound. Even so, the wives police each other, and the same customs are still repeated. It’s also shown that the servants do everything for the master: announcing the chosen wife, lighting lanters, enforcing punishments, and carrying out orders. It suggests to the audience how the system is self-sustaining. The system has been carried out long enough that it has been ingrained in everyone involved in it. And those that are new quickly adapt to it, without even being taught how.
I’m not focusing on satire in this post, but this is clearly a reflection of today’s society. Things go on for so long that it becomes a norm; it’s just widely accepted. And overtime boundaries get pushed farther and farther. And those born into it see no way out of it, as everyone is oppressed by the system. The “system” being those in charge and who, as is obvious in todays wold, seem way above the “system”. Over time, the boundaries will be pushed too far, and it may come crashing down. But nevertheless and new one takes its place.
The faceless nature of the master also portrays power as an impersonal force. Instead of competing with each other for love or emotional connection. They competed for approval from the authority figure. The master isn’t necessarily seen as a person, but just as a symbol of power. Which of course, reflects the idea in society that the oppressive system persists not because of one singular tyrant, but everyone below them, institutions, traditions, and social expectations that keep them running.
Watching Raise the Red Lantern was fascinating to me on many different levels from the complexity of the characters to the silence, and the overall storytelling. However, one thing that stuck with me throughout the film was the camera technique of stillness.
This can show the repetition of the routine of their daily lives being viewed from the same angles. For example, where they would gather for dinner, the roof, or the outside of each of the mistress’s houses. Additionally, inside of the fourth mistress’s house. The significance of the master always not being fully visible in the specific cuts in the fourth mistress room can represent something that the viewers may not be able to recognize from the outside looking in (outside vs. inside) and has a deeper message then what one may initially think.
I feel like stillness has so much power and adds so much to the storyline because viewers are able to focus on the characters and what’s happening. Like at the end of the movie, the fourth mistress going back-and-forth of the same shot, going through time but in that same position, I think shows a lot of power and also has a double meaning of her being a ghost or again that repetitive routine. Another purpose of the static angles can also expose the female experience, and even with the amount of authority that all of these women have especially in relation to their servants they still feel a sense of restrictiveness, and also a lack of freedom in their own environment.
Stillness in this film as it went on reveals that even though the feelings and attitudes of the mistresses were different, the angles were the same, which shows the power of tradition and principles in society and culture. This could be through their daily rituals, what to do and not to do, who to be with and who not to be with and the consequences and competition that comes from that. With the stationary angles on the roof and also being so distant from the characters this also can represent power and how much power something has even from a far distance and what impact that can have. Overall, this technique helps make sure that every single shot no matter if it’s intense or calm has its own moment so that viewers can really engage in the scenery, and also the emotional complexities taking place.
Comedy based satire isn’t just used to commentate on societal norms. It can also be used to differentiate things everybody deals with regardless of the situation. In the case of modern comedy based satire, the TV series Malcolm In The Middle is another amazing example. Malcolm In The Middle is a single camera show centered around a dysfunctional middle class family, our protagonist being a child genius named Malcolm. This series had a very comedy based core, but at times used comedy based satire to speak on everyday family life and how just because something becomes normalized doesn’t make it okay. The chaos of a working class family where nobody has true control over any situation happening. Our protagonist Malcolm, despite being a genius, spends most of his time realizing that intelligence doesn’t actually solve the insane problems surrounding him. His habit of talking specifically to the audience allows him to act as both a partaker in the madness and as someone trying to analyze it from the outside. The tension caused by him attempting to and even sometimes fully understanding the chaos his family is in, and still not being able to escape it really helps the humor land.
A good portion of the show’s satire comes from our main family and how they interact with each other. Lois (the mother), is intense, stubborn, and almost terrifying when it comes to discipline, while Hal (the father) is emotional, impulsive, and often just as immature as their children. Their dynamic sets the tone for everybody else in the house, where rules exist, but they tend to get outright ignored. Malcolm, Reese, and Dewey are always switching between brotherly rivalries and teamwork depending on the amount of trouble they’ve gotten into, which can feel a little exaggerated at times but completely believable for siblings. The comedy grows naturally out of these relationships instead of your average joke, and that’s why the show still holds up to this day. In the end, the family never really becomes “normal,” and that’s exactly the point the show is attempting to make. While they are not perfect, and there are certainly faults within the family, they still love each other.
Family Guy follows the Griffin family and includes the main characters Peter, Lois, Meg, Chris, Stewie, and Brian. Each episode, the family gets into different situations which can reflect the everyday life of living in America, but obviously, it’s exaggerated for comedic effect. The show uses irony and exaggeration to show satire, especially in Peter’s behavior. In most scenes, he’s displayed as immature, which shows the negative stereotypes about adults, and the frequent cutaways to others show references highlighting how horrible some parts of entertainment and pop culture can be.
Family Guy often criticizes American culture, politics, media, and different trends by exaggerating characters and the situations they get themselves into, and shows how weird some behaviors and beliefs are. This encourages the viewers to think about how society treats politics, fame, and different cultures.
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery uses irony and exaggeration with Miles Bron being seen as some great genius billionaire who everyone loves, but over time, people learn to realise that he isn’t that smart, and many of his ideas are exaggerated to make him seem smart while they are actually ridiculous. The film amplifies the behaviour of the rich influencers and displays them as snobby or arrogant while being obsessed with the status that they have. By the creators exaggerating those traits, the movie exposes how ridiculous powerful people can be.
The directors aren’t just making fun of the rich people but also the way that society idolizes billionaires and powerful people without knowing much about them, especially before their fame. Many people do not like or support Bron, but they benefit from his wealth and power, so they stick around and pretend to enjoy themselves around him. This highlights how money can protect people from consequences. By using humor and exaggeration, the film encourages people to question why we admire wealth so much and whether they truly deserve the status that they receive from it.
The sitcom Modern Family is a show and cultural phenomenon that took off in the late 2000s after it premiered in 2009. Modern Family follows the antics of one large and diverse family in Los Angeles, California. Despite being filled with stereotypes and offensive jokes, when taking a closer look at the comedy, Modern Family was actually one of the most progressive shows of the 2010s. Its ingenious comedy helped people learn to accept everyone and treat them like family without losing its unserious energy.
Modern Family is most well known for its masterful use of hyperbole and irony to convey meaningful life lessons while keeping the energy lighthearted. For example, Season 4, Episode 19, “The Future Dunphy,” primarily follows Cam and Mitchell, a gay couple living in Los Angeles with their adopted Vietnamese daughter, Lily. During the course of the episode, Cam and Mitchell feel they need to connect Lily to her Vietnamese culture, and antics ensue. Cam and Mitchell worry that their daughter is “turning white,” and comment that she will become a typical white person if she does not connect with her Vietnamese roots. They joke that she will forget she is Vietnamese and become racist. This is an amazing use of hyperbole to bring comedic light to an issue that many parents of adopted children struggle with. Then situational irony brings the opposite outcome of what is expected. When trying to introduce Lily to Vietnamese culture, Cam and Mitchell are first made fun of by Vietnamese people for their over-the-top attempts to introduce Lily to the culture. Then, to add the cherry on top, Lily begins to hate the Vietnamese culture that is being forced upon her.
While this episode is particularly funny because of the writers’ use of irony and hyperbole, it also comments on several deeper issues beneath the surface. First, it tackles the issue of adoptive parenting—how difficult it can be to raise an adopted child and navigate the challenges of addressing a child’s heritage and native culture. The genius of Modern Family is that its comedic commentary goes even deeper than that. The comedy also comments on the difficulty of being a gay couple with a child in America. The show was released before gay marriage was legalized nationwide and highlights the challenges gay couples faced in American society. It shows how society often labels gay couples as bad parents without actually seeing how they parent and care for their child.
Although dramatic comedy, as described by Aristotle, is often seen as less meaningful than tragedies, Pride & Prejudice reveals human flaws in a way that’s meaningful but also entertaining. Characters like Elizabeth aren’t tragic heroes, but flawed people whose pride and prejudice towards others leads to conflict. By showing how Elizabeth recognizes her faults and attempts to be less prideful and assumptive, this comedy shows the possibility of moral growth among flawed people.
Frozen is a Disney animated film about 2 princesses/sisters, Anna and Elsa, who’s relationship was tested when Elsa progressively lost control of her magical powers and put the kingdom in jeopardy. While the movie follows a magical fairy tale structure it also challenges many fairy tale expectations. The use of satire in the movie is used to criticize unrealistic ideas about love, heroism, and gender roles.
Traditional gender roles and heroism is challenged in this film by showing that Anna did not need a prince to save her, but instead the true love and sacrifice of her sister. Elsa’s whole persona is extremely ironic because she is the exact opposite of what she intended. All her life she lived in fear, restricted and desperate to hide her powers and protect her kingdom, yet the moment she let herself go she unintentionally caused a disaster. This situation satirizes the unrealistic expectations of leaders, especially women, to remain perfect and in control. By showing Elsa’s struggles throughout the movie viewers gradually understand that true strength comes from accepting imperfections and learning to face challenges instead of running from them. The idea of an eternal winter is a hyperbole, representing the exaggerated effects of Elsa’s fear literally causing an endless winter across the kingdom. For so long she concealed her feelings and anxiety out of fear of being rejected by the world, when she was no longer able to hide her true feelings they exploded, thus highlighting the importance of confronting your emotions. The eternal winter was not on purpose but it was an accidental masterpiece reflecting her own misery.
What’s more ironic than a young queen causing chaos? Another young princess extremely eager for love. Anna’s excitement to finally gain freedom led her into a dangerous situation opposed to the fairy tale ending she expected. After meeting Hans on the first day Anna immediately believes he is her true love and agrees to marry him. Their relationship is a direct parody of the “true love at first sight” narrative where characters instantly fall in love without even knowing the others true objective. The movie exaggerates this through various characters making fun of how unrealistic it is and even an adorable song to top it off. When Hans later reveals that he never truly loved Anna the typical fairy tale prince charming persona quickly fades and she realizes that he wasn’t who he seemed to be. The irony of the situation is that in the midst of searching for love she delivered herself to the main person who had it out for her. While she thought their similarities was fate, he was was simply mimicking her to gain trust and status. In conclusion, don’t trust men and don’t forget to let it go!
Friends (1994-2004) is a situational comedy that captures the professional, romantic, and platonic adventures of 6 adults living in Manhattan. Through the persistent use of sarcasm and humor, the series both became a global entertainment phenomenon and was successful in enhancing the world’s understanding of love, failure, trauma, and friendship.
There are endless moments of comedy in this show, but here are a few that stick out. First, Ross’ repetition of the line “We were on a break” to Rachel throughout the series transforms a painful romantic heartbreak into an instance of humor while simultaneously highlighting the importance of understanding in a meaningful relationship. Chandler’s relentless sarcasm acts as a comedic defense mechanism to escape his fear of vulnerability and closeness. When Joey gets a “man bag” (what he doesn’t realize is a woman’s purse) and shows it off to his friends, they react by making fun of him. This reflects the absurdity of gender norms and how quick society can be to regulate masculinity. Phoebe’s laughable references to her mother’s suicide and depressing childhood demonstrates the resilience of humans to become happy after living with darkness.
Ultimately, Friends proves that comedy can be more than a source of entertainment. It is a tool for navigating and subtly unraveling the complexities of life. By wrapping these truths in laughter, this show allows the audience to confront themes of love, identity and loss in a positive way, which is what makes the comedy so effective.
The 2001 film Shrek follows the story of a green ogre named Shrek who embarks on a journey to rescue Princess Fiona from a guarded tower in exchange for his land back. The movie employs a wide range of literary choices that make it an effective satire that criticizes society’s standards of appearance, authenticity, and traditional fairy tales. The first technique I noticed was situational irony, which occurs when the outcome is the opposite of what was expected. Instead of a knight in shining armor coming to rescue the princess, the savior is an ugly, smelly ogre, which challenges the “Prince Charming” stereotype and suggests that beauty is irrelevant when someone is chivalrous. Additionally, a story typically ends with the characters breaking a curse that falls upon them. Instead, Fiona’s happy ending is her being cursed forever because she prefers her ogre form over her princess self. This example of satire represents the idea that true love can only persist when you accept who you are instead of pretend to be the person others want you to be. I also noticed the use of hyperbole in the form of Lord Farquaad’s shortness. His height is exaggerated and specifically much smaller than Princess Fiona’s to highlight the insane ego of powerful leaders, when in reality they are deeply insecure and abuse power to compensate for their own shortcomings. Overall, the satire present in Shrek serves to make the story an anti-fairytale that encourages the audience to reject the rigidity of social norms and embrace who they are beneath the surface.
Scary Movie is brilliant in the way it satirizes the ridiculousness and predictability of horror/thriller films. This movie is a parody of other good films, like Scream and I Know What You did Last Summer, and plays on embedded dramatic irony in scary movies to make fun of cliches such as the dumb white teenage girl who somehow seems to survive the entire movie. Using satire, this movie plays on several stereotypes that thriller/horror films never seem to beat. The point of satire is to mock common tropes, which is constantly used in Scary Movie but turn them into jokes.
From the opening scene of the dumb blonde getting threatened on a call with an unknown caller, we see the unseriousness of slasher films and how they try to portray teenagers to be dumber than they actually are.
Instead of the anticipation of the killers arrival we start to laugh as a result of his clumsiness and the jokes he makes towards the blonde girl.
On the other hand, this brings some form of attention to how comfortable teenagers sometimes get with strangers especially in the virtual world. They believe there is a virtual barrier created between them and the other person on the phone which allows them to be non hesitant and tranquil about sharing personal information.
This is shown in the scene where the popcorn pops making the killer ask what that sound was and instead of the blonde girl talking about the popcorn she tells him about her fart, which is something people wouldn’t even tell their friends. This depicts the dangers of social media and how it creates a “safe space” for people to over share their personal lives without thinking of the dangers, such as stalking, it may cause. The specific stereotypes used pushes the ideas on the predictability of what the next scene would be or who would be killed next, possibly the promiscuous popular kid.
Other examples of stereotypes played on in the movie are black girl not knowing who her dad is, girl running upstairs from the killer instead of running outside, the “unexpected” killer which is either the final girls boyfriend or someone from her close circle, girl who tries to run away but somehow trips allowing the killer to get her easily and finally, clueless cops who never seem to figure out who the killer is (spoiler alert: it’s a character close to the case who always drops hints but somehow seems to go unnoticed).
Even though Scary Movie is a parody, it still carries a few serious messages about horror movies and their stereotypes. By mocking the usual horror patterns, it shows how repetitive and predictable the genre can get when all filmmakers stick to the same script. Instead of putting in complex characters they use the same type of characters with the same background story, making the film seem unrealistic. Additionally, it makes teenagers believe that bad behavior such as partying and sexual behavior would be the cause of their death instead of actually teaching teenagers why such behavior is categorized as immoral or even harmful. Lastly, by making fun of fear it makes the audience realize ridiculous a situation is when you look at it logically, example, Buffy telling the killer what she’s supposed to do before he eventually gets her and kills her whiles laughing at the situation she’s in. It helps the audience to realize that she’s not every fearful situation is a helpless one.
In conclusion, Scary Movie brings attention to the laziness in the horror film industry and how most story lines have been recycled with new characters who somehow still have the same storyline.
Comedy is often seen as simple entertainment, but it can also reveal important truths about human nature. According to Aristotle, comedy usually tells the story of an ordinary character whose situation improves over time. Comedy focuses on everyday people and their struggles rather than powerful heroes.
The television show The Office is a strong example of how comedy can help audiences understand the human condition.
The Office is a series about employees working at a small paper company. On the surface, the show focuses on awkward situations and workplace humor. Characters like
Michael Scott constantly embarrass themselves, and the employees deal with everyday problems like office gossip, relationships, and boredom at work.
However, the show does more than simply make people laugh. It highlights the realities of ordinary life, which Aristotle believed was a central feature of comedy.
The characters are not heroes or villains; they are regular people trying to find meaning in routine jobs. Through humor, the show explores loneliness, ambition, friendship, and the desire for recognition. For example, Michael Scott often acts foolishly, but he also desperately wants to be liked and respected. This reveals something universal about human nature: the need for belonging.
The show also follows the classic comic structure of rising fortune.
Characters like Jim and Pam slowly build a relationship and eventually find happiness together. Their story provides the satisfying emotional payoff typical of romantic comedy, where obstacles are eventually overcome.
Because it focuses on ordinary life and relatable struggles, The Office deepens our understanding of how people interact in everyday environments. Instead of presenting grand heroic stories, it shows how humor can reveal truth in simple moments.
For these reasons, comedy should absolutely be considered a meaningful art form. Shows like The Office demonstrate that laughter can be a powerful way to explore human behavior, relationships, and the challenges of everyday life.
One strong example of contemporary satire is the 2021 film Don’t Look Up. The movie follows two scientists who discover a comet that will destroy Earth, but when they try to warn the public, politicians, media personalities, and corporations ignore or distort the information. Instead of taking the threat seriously, leaders turn the crisis into entertainment and political drama.
The film uses several satirical techniques to make its point. One major technique is hyperbole. The characters react in exaggerated ways that highlight real problems in society. For example, news shows treat the end of the world like celebrity gossip rather than a serious issue. This exaggeration mirrors how modern media sometimes prioritizes entertainment over important news. The movie also uses irony. Even though scientists provide clear evidence of the comet, many people refuse to believe it. The irony is that humanity has the knowledge to save itself but fails because of politics, greed, and denial. The film also uses parody by mocking modern talk shows, political campaigns, and tech billionaires.
However, the movie is not simply making fun of politicians or media figures. Instead, it criticizes broader issues in society, especially how people respond to scientific warnings. Many viewers see the comet as a metaphor for real global issues like climate change. The film suggests that society often ignores serious problems until it is too late because leaders focus on profit, popularity, or short-term political gain.
Through humor and exaggeration, Don’t Look Up encourages viewers to think critically about how governments, media, and the public respond to major crises. The satire works because it makes people laugh while also making them uncomfortable about the reality it reflects.
The comedic TV show series Abbott Elementary (2021-present) created by Quinta Brunson, centers around teachers and staff in a predominantly Black public school that is underfunded in Philadelphia. The show also covers the themes of how public schools are funded, and why it’s important to have Black teachers and representation in schools. Abbott Elementary is popular and has grown recognition not only because of its humor, but also because of how relatable the characters are to current society, the daily challenges that occur in the classroom, and how they overcome the hurdles in the educational field.
Abbott Elementary uses the satire techniques of hyperbole and irony, but specifically situational irony. Hyperbole is evident through Ava Coleman, and how she uses her power and authority in her role as principal. She is repetitively self-centered, and uses funding for the school for personal satisfaction including when she bought a massive sign with her face on it instead of using the funding for resources and materials so that their students can succeed. This emphasizes the struggle to navigate circumstances in the workforce surrounding education through comedy. The situational irony is represented through the teachers having to fundraise through crowdfunding for school supplies while the district uses their money for expensive purchases that have nothing to do with uplifting the school and those within it making it unbeneficial.
Overall, Abbott Elementary is not only making fun of some of the decisions that the faculty makes but also trying to challenge the false narrative about schools that are underfunded. Specifically by focusing on how the root of this issue is through the institutions that are failing these schools through the funding that they provide for them and how they use money themselves. The purpose of the humor in this series is to create a sense of urgency and call to action for viewers to also take the time to invest and do their own education surrounding public schools, and how they are essential in society. This work is attempting to make it clear that public schools are necessary in society. To change society, it starts with being properly educated and given the proper tools to do so.
Comedy as a genre at it’s simplest, is centered around making people laugh by telling a funny joke. But when used correctly at it’s core, comedy is used to address things one can’t say normally. As Peter Ustinov once said “Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious.” The Office is one of the best examples of this, with it being a comedic satire of workplace culture. Instead of jokes the show takes everyday office archetypes and exaggerates them to a ridiculous extent, making them apparent to the viewer.
One example of how it does this is through Michael Scott, the regional manager, who serves as the clearest example of satire in the entire show. His innate desire to be liked and his continuous misunderstanding of professionalism parallels the idea the idea that leadership does not automatically equal competence. Episodes in the show highlight Michael’s tendencies to make inappropriate jokes or bad motivational speeches, highlighting how some managers prioritize popularity over actual management abilities.
Dwight Schrute is another exaggerate workplace norm: the incredibly loyal, rule-obsessed employee. His unneeded addiction to authority, hierarchy, and insane sense of pride in the company rules mock how serious people treat relatively simple office jobs. Dwight’s extreme nature turns simple jobs into high stakes missions, showing the comedic gap between the actual importance of the job and his belief behind its importance.
Jim Halpert and Pam Beesly are one of the last big examples of The Office’s satire element(there are more, but these three are the most obvious). They act as window’s into the chaos for the audience, directly acknowledging how ridiculous their co-workers can be. Their reactions, often shown by sly glances at the camera, help acknowledge everything going on and how completely nonsensical it is. These two characters help reinforce the satire by showing the that even though this behavior has become somewhat normalized, some characters can still recognize the insanity of what’s happening around them/
The rich cast of characters in The Office come together to turn a normally paper company into a comedy based criticism on corporate environments. By exaggerating some stereotypical workplace personas, The Office exposes awkward social dynamics, misplaced ambition, and everyday problems with office life. This results in a television show that is both funny and incredibly aware about the office environment.
In 2021, the film “Don’t Look Up” was released. It follows the story of two scientists who discover a comet that will destroy Earth in about six months. When revealed to the public and the government, everyone refuses to respond with urgency. The media treats it as entertainment, people try to profit from it, politicians refuse to acknowledge it, and the public splits into two sides deciding whether or not the comet is real.
The comet is widely accepted as a symbol of climate change. The efforts of people throughout the movie highlight what is happening in our own world today with climate change. Scientists have been warning about climate change for decades, and there have, of course, been major efforts to divert and delay the life ending affects of this. Nevertheless, scientists warn that the tipping point (1.5 degrees Celsius increase) will be reached in the next two decades. There, of course, needs to be even more drastic efforts taken. Despite this, and the countless forms of evidence provided, governments often stall on climate policy. This is echoed in the movie’s politicians, who delay action and divert attention.
In the movie, there are also large corpotations who want to profit from this by mining the comet. This is echoed in today’s world by corporations producing supersized data centers that rapidly use water, energy, and resources to enhance AI. Prioritizing the use of AI and focusing on profit instead of being aware of what they are doing to the environment.
The film is also heavily focused on the satire of politics. The President delays actions on the comet in fear that it will affect elections. Later, she uses it to drive publicity and public popularity for her campaign. Obviously, this is reflected in today’s world where certain politicians run entire campagins off certain issues and turn away once they have been elected. To further this, “Don’t Look Up” splits the public in belviers and non-believers of the comet. This is represented in our society with the extreme polarization of the republican and Democratic parties, which has created a political atmosphere of extreme tensions and the inability to work together.
The film uses absurd humor and exaggerated characters to show how irrational humans can become. If creates a comedic atmosphere, but it is obviously a reflection of real societal patterns.
The main goal of this movie is to highlight how society sometimes refuses to respond to existential threats because of political polarization, profits driven decsions, and public misinformation.
Aristotle defines comedy as anything where the main character rises in fortune throughout, ending in a higher position than where they began. Some may claim this is an outdated definition, but I feel as if this definition contributes to the plot of many movies, and counts as a meaningful art form.
The 1999 movie, 10 Things I Hate About You, follows the two main characters Kat Stratford and Patrick Verona as they slowly and unexpectedly, to themselves, fall in love. It starts as a set up plotted by Cameron James because he had a crush on Kats twin sister, Bianca Stratford. The twins dad had a rule where Bianca was only going to be allowed to date if Kat started dating. Cameron found this out and set up Patrick and Kat so he would be able to take Bianca out himself.
In this movie, Aristotle’s definition of a comedy shines through as in the beginning some might consider both Kat and Patrick at a lower level because they were both lonely and independent people. As they start to catch feeling for each other and fall in love, you could consider this their status increasing because they now both have each other as companions and aren’t miserable being alone. While this may indicate that people in relationships are better than people not in them, that is not always the case, it is just the structure that this movie, and a lot of other cliche romantic comedy’s follow in order to hook the audience.
Aristotle’s definition of comedy is being used in this movie to show the message that the things you think you may want for yourself isn’t always what is going to be best for you or what you need. Many other movies use his definition in a similar way, as a backbone to prove a point or teach people a separate lesson. Without the use of Arterioles definition of comedy, the lesson wouldn’t have been as effective to the viewer, but because it was used, people can get a better grasp at the life lesson being communicated in the movie.
Although Aristotle’s definition of comedy may be considered outdated by some, it is still used effectively and meaningfully in many movies and TV shows, mainly as the backbone to teach a separate lesson or message.
Raise the Red Lantern shows a far more realistic picture of women’s lives in a hierarchical society, which is why I found it so interesting. Each character has a unique personality and adds something significant to the story. The way the movie shows women who cannot make decisions about their own lives caught my attention the most. whereas Elizabeth Bennet in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice finds both love and stability in her marriage. Despite her family’s dependence on marriage for wealth, Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice refuses to marry someone she does not appreciate. She eventually finds happiness and love when she marries Fitzwilliam Darcy. Her friend Charlotte Lucas, on the other hand, fears becoming a single woman and decides to marry for stability rather than love. Elizabeth’s story offers a brighter ending in which a person who rejects social norms yet finds happiness. Songlian’s life in Raise the Red Lantern, on the other hand, is far more terrible. Following the death of her father, she is forced to enter into an arranged marriage and live under strict rules as other women compete for attention. She loses control of her life despite having an education and having goals for the future. She becomes insane at the end of the film due to the pressure, proving how stuck she really is. Both stories show women in a male-dominated society with limited choices. But Songlian’s life ends tragically, whereas Elizabeth’s story ends peacefully. In contrast to the darker reality pictured in Raise the Red Lantern, Elizabeth’s ideal ending may appear unbelievable.
The philosopher Aristotle believed comedy could be a meaningful art form because it reflects authentic human behavior and it can also help audiences better understand life. While many people believe comedies to simply entertain, some shows use humor to explore deeper ideas about people and relationships. The sitcom Brooklyn Nine-Nine shows that idea by using humor to show friendship, leadership and overall growth in life.
On example of this is the character, Jake Peralta. In the show he is portrayed as immature and often makes jokes in serious situations, even though they make for a lot of funny moments. However, throughout the show, he grows into a more responsible detective and also friend. He learns to care more about his coworkers and begins to take his job more seriously. His character shows his improvement over time and also helps others understand that people can mature and really grow up over time even if they start out with some flaws.
Another example of this is shown through Captain Raymond Holt. His character is always serious, which pairs well for many comedic moments with Jake, and also contrasts many of the other detectives that work with him. At the same time, Holt is an excellent leader who encourages his team to work together and support one another. His character also shows how leadership can be based on fairness, discipline and respect.
Overall, Brooklyn Nine-Nine supports this idea that comedy can be art and entertain, but also serves good life lessons to the audience. As shows are filled with jokes and otherwise crazy situations, it also explores real life scenarios and personal growth that comes with. Comedy not only helps the audience laugh and enjoy the content, but also helps understand human beings as a whole.
I thought that the movie, Raising the Red Lantern was really interesting to watch. I thought that the characters all had very unique characteristics and everyone brought something to the story. I really think that it was important to have a more realistic point of view, of women in a society that do not have the option to make choices for their lives, compared to Elizabeth Bennet , who lived in a society, did not conform to social standards and still ended up in a secure marriage with a loving man. I think this is unrealistic and sets a false narrative of women in that kind of society.
Considering Pride and Prejudice and raising the red lantern together, Elizabeth Bennet was the picture of main character in her story. She grew up in a secure family, with every opportunity to learn things and conform to a society that knows the more realistic option for women is to end up with a man of good being and character. Despite her family needing someone to secure a marriage I order for her and her family to be able to keep their house after the passing of their father, she countiued to hold a prejudice and standard for the eligible men of her society. And in the end, she not only secured a marriage, she found love and a friend within her relationship. Her life at the end of the book ended happy. Even throughout the book, the narrative critized her best friend Charlotte, for securing a marriage with a man she had no love for. But she needed a marriage for herself, because she knew without it, she would soon be considered a spinster of her society. The difference between the two is one did nothing to secure a marriage and still needed up in a picture perfect one, and another wanted a proper marriage wherever she could find it.
Now considering Songlian’s life, she was educated, played the flute, and had some what of a mind of her own. But after her father had passed away, and she was forced into an arranged marriage with a not so nice man, she was forced to conform to their teachings and ways of living. Her life became the exact opposite of perfect, because she had to change for her family. In the end it drove her mad. She realized that no matter what she did, or what steps she wanted to take for her life, that freedom would now be an impossible goal. this was represented through the last scene of the movie, when she walked back and fourth infant of her “house”. She had no other ways to defend her character other than going mad inside her own head. In a way, this protected her and represented a fight back against the life she was forced to live. The only thing she had left from the person she was before, was the university uniform she came in.
Comparing both Pride and Prejudice and Raising the Red Lantern, both have aspects of what it means to be a woman in a male powered society. Both women from the stories did not have many options for their own lives. even though Elizabeths life ended with her in love, she still and will always be less than a man, because of how their society worked. Songlian’s life ended in a tragedy because in the end she had nothing. Even though she gave up her life to support herself, she still ended with nothing. It goes to show that the choices we make in our life will not guarantee a secure or happy life. Not conforming does not mean ones life will not be secure, and vice versus, but its what we do with what we control, that changes the future.
When watching Raise the Red Lantern, the director uses the cinematic technique of establishing shots to show that we are only observers of Songlian’s trauma. As the observer moves through the movie, we only see the outside of a building when it is clear that something is happening inside. We hear and see nothing because we weren’t there to witness what was really happening. One example is when the master stays at Songlian’s room for the night. We only watch the outside of the house, seeing nothing but the lit lanterns inside and outside. The silence conveys that everything happening is beyond our control and beyond our observation. We are also reminded that when Songlian goes to where they killed Meishan, we are at a distance when we see her walk up to where they took her and open it. We never see what Songlian saw because the director wants us to remember we are not there to experience what she is, but we can still hear her screams becasue multiple other characters can hear her too. It seems we can only hear dialogue that other people in the film can also hear, like a conversation or maybe someone overhearing. Again, this is used to show that the watcher is only the watcher, and not actively there.
Watching Raise the Red Lantern, one thing that really stood out to me was how important sound is in a place that is supposed to keep women quiet. Meishan’s voice is powerful and confident because she used to be an opera singer. When she sings, it almost feels like she is refusing to lose completely who she is and was before becoming a concubine. In a house where wives are expected to compete for their master’s attention and follow strict tradition, her singing feels bold and often rebellious at times despite the appreciation master has for it. It is almost as if she is reminding everyone, especially the mistresses, that she is more than just a wife.
Songlian’s flute connects to this idea but in a more subtle way. Unlike Meishan, Songlian doesn’t express herself loudly or confidently. Her flute feels more like a personal keepsake that helps her escape the pressures of living within the compound. It serves as one of the only things she has that still connects her not to the outside world only, but her late father as well. Similar to the way her university uniform connects her to her former life.
To me, the contrast between Meishan’s voice and Songlian’s flute shows two different ways people try to hold on to their identity in a place that wants to redefine you. One is loud and bold, the other is quiet and private. But the sad part of the film is that the system in the house is that it doesn’t really allow them to be free in any way. Whether its a strong voice or a soft flute, any form of individuality eventually gets crushed by the deeply rooted traditions of the household.
Romantic comedies are often seen as only fun movies, but they can also reveal a lot about human behavior. In How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, the movie uses humor and exaggeration to show how people act in relationships and why honesty matters. This fits with Aristotle’s idea that comedy can reflect real human flaws and help audiences understand human nature.
In the movie, both Andie and Ben start their relationship with hidden motives. Andie is writing an article about how to push away a guy in 10 days, while Ben is trying to prove he can make a woman fall in love with him. The comedy comes from the weird and ridiculous situations Andie creates to scare Ben off, but it also shows how people sometimes manipulate others to achieve their own goals.
Even though the movie is exaggerated, it still highlights real relationship issues like trust, pride, and honesty. By the end, both charters realize that being genuine matters more than winning a bet or completing an assignment. Because of this, the film shows how dramatic comedy can be entertaining while also giving insight into human behavior.
According to Aristotle, comedy shows the flaws and imperfections of ordinary people in a way that makes us laugh but also helps us understand human behavior. A great modern-day example of this is the TV show Modern Family. Even though the show is funny and sometimes exaggerated, it still reflects and shines a light on real situations that families have to deal with.
Modern Family follows the lives of three connected families and shows everyday problems like miscommunication, parenting struggles, and more. For example, characters like Phil Dunphy, the “main” dad, try really hard to be a good dad but often ends up embarrassing his kids in the process. The humor comes from his awkwardness and mistakes it it also shows how much he cares and what he’s willing to do for his family. This reflects Aristotle’s idea that comedy highlights human flaws in a way that feels more relatable than tragic.
The show also explores different family structures, like blended families and cultural differences through character like Gloria and Jay (a younger Colombian immigrant with a son and an older American man on his second marriage with two adult kids). Many of the conflicts start from misunderstandings or personality differences which is something that happens in real life, and by exaggerating these situations, the show makes them funny while still showing how families can work through problems/differences and support each other. Another family is a gay couple of men who have an adopted daughter from Vietnam. The dynamics and characters in this show promote diversity and represent many different types of people and relationships, and make audience members who may not usually relate with these demographics have common life experiences to laugh along and relate with.
Overall Modern Family shows that dramatic comedy can still be meaningful. While the show is meant to entertain, it also reveals truths about relationships, communication, and the imperfect nature of people, fitting Aristotle’s idea that comedy can help us better understand the human condition by laughing at our flaws.
When people think of comedy, they often assume it is just entertainment meant to make people laugh. However, comedy can also reveal deeper truths about human nature. The philosopher Aristotle argued that comedy imitates real life in a way that highlights human flaws and behaviors. The TV show The Officeis a great example of this idea because it uses humor to explore relationships, insecurity, ambition, and the awkwardness of everyday life.
At first glance, The Office seems like a simple workplace comedy about employees at the Dunder Mifflin Scott, played by Steve Carell, who often create uncomfortable or ridiculous situations. Michael constantly tries to be liked by his employees, even though his attempts usually fail. While this is funny, it also reflects a real human desire: the need to belong and be respected. Through humor, the show reveals how people sometimes act awkwardly or make mistakes while trying to connect with others.
Another way The Office enhances our understanding of human nature is through its relationships. The slow-developing relationship between Jim and Pan shows how ordinary people struggle with timing, fear, and uncertainty in love. Their story feels realistic because it shows hesitation, misses opportunities, and personal growth. Even though many scenes are comedic, the emotional moments remind viewers that life in the workplace is not just about jobs; it is about friendships and personal connections.
The show also comments on modern work culture. Many viewers recognize the boredom of office routines, the awkward meetings, and the strange personalities found in workplaces. By exaggerating these situations, The Office allows audiences to laugh at experiences that might otherwise feel frustrating. In this way, comedy helps people process everyday struggles and see them from a different perspective.
Overall, The Office proves that comedy can be a meaningful art form rather than just simple entertainment. By showing flawed characters, realistic relationships, and relatable workplace situations, the series helps viewers understand human behavior more deeply.
One example of contemporary satire is the movie Mean Girls (2004), written by Tina Fey. The film is about a teenager named Cady Heron, who has been homeschooled her whole life in Africa and moved to attend an American high school. She at first didn’t comprehend the complex social standards of high school, but she soon joined Regina George’s popular group, “The Plastics.” Cady starts acting exactly like the people she used to criticize as she spends more time attempting to get popularity.
The movie uses several satirical techniques, such as exaggeration and irony. For example, the popular girls adhere to ridiculous standards about behavior and attire, such as wearing pink only on Wednesdays. This exaggerates how high school groups determine who is allowed to join a friend group. The movie uses irony as well, since, although Cady’s initial attempts are to show the cruelty of the popular girls, she slowly turns into one of them.
However, Mean Girls is not just making fun of teenagers. The movie criticizes the way social pressure and competition can affect people’s behavior, especially in school environments. It shows how gossip, bullying, and the desire to fit in can harm friendships and self-confidence. By using humor to highlight these problems, the film encourages viewers to think about how people treat each other and how unnecessary social hierarchies can be.
Overall, Mean Girls uses comedy and exaggeration to portray the reality of social pressure and popularity. The satire makes the story entertaining, but it also encourages audiences to reflect on how harmful certain social behaviors can be and why it is important to treat others with respect.