Month: September 2019

The presentation today reminded me of how we started as a group. The initial pitch was to be a parody of state-run television, but I’m surprised at how highly developed the idea was before we had moved on. We had multiple segments already planned out, multiple jokes already conceptualised, and a general idea as to the progression of the piece.

In hindsight, this idea just isn’t as good satire as the format we have now would be. The format we have now, a complete recreation of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, is a good stable framework from which we are able to explore our topic. I think it’s especially important that we use a basic framework, which means that we can devote more time to the actual writing of the show. This also means we don’t have to worry about extensive camera movements, multiple directions, or pre-recorded pieces because we can instead work in this format to deliver something incisive.

Particularly, the show is a ‘writers’ show, in that the show focuses on the writing and delivery, the raw content, as opposed to the form. The straightforward monologue with graphics and examples is engaging and by this point familiar, which makes it easy to consume and write. It also means we can experiment in these confines to try and create our own spin on the format.

I know personally that it was important through my delivery to be more relatable and sincere as opposed to a specific parody or send-up of stock news personalities. Jon Stewart, John Oliver, and Hasan Minhaj in particular are big influences in that they play themselves, injecting their own personality into their delivery and writing. I thought it was important to play a heightened version of myself, with a lot more volume and emotion. It also means I can have larger reactions using sarcasm or rhetorical questions than I usually would.

For one of the tapings, I dressed in a suit and shirt to try and be more authentic to the ‘fake news’ format. We also went and grabbed a backdrop in the props room of a skyline, screen-printed onto wood, and set it up behind me to mimic the set of late night shows.

The suit and shirt worked really well to convey the format. I should probably not wear grey – it feels more casual, and should probably be substituted for something more striking. I should also wear a tie.

The backdrop was more problematic. The screen-printing extended to beyond the front-facing side, so the continuity of the skyline was affected and looked slightly disjointed. The panels were secured using beanbags, but could not be pushed closer together, which meant there were clear black lines between the panels. This was somewhat remedied by placing me in front of one of the lines, but it also meant that we couldn’t move the camera around.

As a group, we decided not to actually use this backdrop – even though I personally liked the backdrop, the director decided that we should try another option to make a better impression.

There were some moments where I flubbed up my delivery. For some reason, I had trouble with the autocue prompter at times. I felt like I couldn’t read it properly, or that it was moving too fast. During tapings, it’s hard for me to communicate this, which means rehearsals will be really important to make sure I won’t be playing catchup.

From my perspective, the broadcast feels very seamless. Whilst I’m on camera, I don’t really have control over the broadcast aside from my own performance. From what I can tell from the display available to me, the EVS and graphics are always on time and smooth. They seem to have a really fluid system, and it helps to have our Graphics and EVS involved in the writing as they know exactly when they have to be going.

ONE: https://www.mediafactory.org.au/aaronoshlack/2019/09/02/assignment-2-blog-1/

TWO: https://www.mediafactory.org.au/aaronoshlack/2019/09/02/assignment-2-blog-2/

THREE: https://www.mediafactory.org.au/aaronoshlack/2019/09/02/assignment-2-blog-3/

FOUR: https://www.mediafactory.org.au/aaronoshlack/2019/09/02/assignment-2-blog-4/

🙂

I was involved in the research, writing, and performing of the segment. 

For the research and writing portion, I sought to take from formats that I was familiar with. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver was the primary source of structure and format of news satire, and one I thought would be more effective as a way to convey the seriousness of the news story. 

As a group, we moved away from a parody of state television to instead just take on the subject as news satire as opposed to more of a fake news format. The majority of the jokes we could create were born more out of the irony created by the subjects such as the police and politicians, and were instead facilitated by the media’s reporting on the protests. I think we had strong jokes and a strong amount of jokes throughout the whole segment. Watching the example, the jokes break up the information and find humour in the situation. The jokes also don’t feel forced as the segment is meant to be pre-written – one thing I thought would be a struggle is to have interviews that were scripted but felt natural, but by just having a singular host, we were able to have a controlled, natural delivery due to the expectation of scripted jokes amongst the information. 

In regards to the work, I think as a group we work well together to produce these segments. I tend to research and write a basic outline; as the performer, this helps me maintain my own voice so it’s comfortable for me to deliver. After I’ve written a majority of a portion, we conduct a read-through as a group to add, subtract, or change jokes, identify camera directions, spaces for graphics, or looking for what we want to focus or add next. This helps the group work through the script. Usually during read throughs, I tend to just accept any changes made as I feel that I’ve contributed sufficiently, and my perspective can be wrong at times; it’s good to have them take apart what I’ve written because it makes the overall product stronger. They also give me directorial notes to my delivery – whether I say something with sarcasm, shock, or anger, etc. By going through the script together, we also get a good sense of timing. I think this contributed to our group having very coordinated camera movements, vocal delivery, EVS and graphics all working together. 

In the studio, I just focus on my delivery. I slur some words, so I need to work on making my diction clearer. I also noticed watching myself that I actually lacked energy: even though I thought I was being energetic, I have to be even more energetic to make a lasting impression. I also need to vary my pitch to be more engaging, so as to avoid feeling monotonous. 

There was only one mistake I think that needs to be fixed. When the EVS of the video plays of the police chief talking about their 39 minute response, I felt the video cutoff too early, and so felt stilted. The impact of the joke in their correction from 40 minutes to 39 minutes was lost as I had to deliver that information as opposed to the subjects themselves giving away their incompetence. 

Another change, the one I’m less concerned with, is the lack of visual finesse. The set and my outfit looks roughneck and unprofessional. We have time to create a coherent visual look, which would help legitimise our performance, and would also be more engaging for people to watch. 

I think our content is really strong, especially for a prototype, and we know exactly where we need to improve and how to build upon what’s already there.

Fentanyl – Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj

“Our pattern is fun, depressing, fun. So if we get through this, next week, I’m going to do the whole episode while jumping on a trampoline, OK?”

Hasan Minhaj says this in response to the audience’s reaction to the week’s topic – fentanyl. It’s an opioid that is stronger than even heroin, and has resulted in thousands of deaths by overdose. The odds are that in America, there is a small degree of separation between people affected by opioid addiction due to overprescription of strong painkillers in unnecessary situations, and an increase in drug use and proliferation of heroin and fentanyl. 

So how does he make this serious topic funny?

That opening line establishes this is a serious episode – this sets our expectations to understand there aren’t going to be as many jokes as compared to information and a call to action. 

That isn’t to say he doesn’t find room for jokes, because he does. 

That joke gives the audience a little bit of a respite and space to laugh, but he quickly goes straight back to more statistics and information. The joke works because he gives a sense of scale through figures in popular culture, but doesn’t shy away from the actual facts. 

This joke is so quick the audience barely gets to react before he moves on. The jokes are so deft that they both leave a comedic impression and don’t distract from the importance of this segment. It also gives a sense of scale of the amount of fentanyl needed to kill a person. 

This acts as an aside to make jokes at the expense of the news crew not being able to treat the subject as it is supposed to be treated. Although he uses the news clip to inform, he takes time to make fun of it as a way of creating humour without mentioning the main topic. This means Minhaj can both take the topic of fentanyl seriously without reducing the amount of jokes because the jokes can also come from other sources. 

Minhaj makes a joke here aimed at his diaspora. By making fun of the expectations of Asian parents on their children, he relates to the specific population whilst also making fun of his subject. The faux status of pharmacist is contrasted with the amount of corruption. 

For this last portion, Minhaj doesn’t make any jokes for over four minutes. He gives the topic room to breathe and relies solely on pathos and logos for a call to action. He makes the subject personal and doesn’t try to deflect or let the audience have any respite from the topic. He treats it seriously. That little quip at the end references an earlier joke, but isn’t a punchline so much as it uses the previous joke to create a connection between a polite drug smuggler, and the polite pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs themselves. 

Hong Kong protests are getting less funny. 

That sounds crass, but it’s a hard line to walk in making fun of authority figures whilst paying respect to the severe nature of the protests. We’re certainly punching up, but when the punching bag is escalating to terrorism attacks in public transport, consorting with criminal organisations, and protesters escalating from non-violence to counterattacks, it’s hard to find levity in the situation. 

But that’s part of the job in news satire, especially given we seek to inform as well as entertain. Part of the hook is the comedic element, and finding comedy in the actual situation. 

That isn’t to say finding hypocrisies in authority figures is difficult – there are almost constant gaffes from the police, the CEO, and irony is abound, especially in how people relate to Hong Kong – but sometimes I feel terrible about making jokes because the situation is slowly becoming so dire. 

No one has died yet, but injuries are so severe, and there is an atmosphere of fear that wasn’t ever present before in Hong Kong. I feel like some of the jokes that we tell are at the expense of cutting the solemn mood of protesters, and their actual fight. I felt this particularly when a crew member made an offhand joke about protesters getting shot after our first rehearsal take. It’s true that protesters haven’t been shot, but if they do, can we continue to make jokes out of the protests in Hong Kong? 

And more importantly, we need to make sure we’re making jokes that are relevant to their needs. A lot of the jokes rely on the incompetence of the police while making passing reference to what they’re actually good at, which is beating people a lot and very hard. There is serious reason to worry. 

I think this in relation to a lot of the other segments my classmates are producing on the Calombaris scandal, the Adani mine, or data mining, that the Hong Kong protests are a very heavy subject that doesn’t concern Australia directly. It’s more that there is a constant reminder of these heavy protests that every now and then encroach on life here in local protests, and we have to be aware of making sure people know we’re being serious whilst being entertaining, and we have to make sure we are informative than ever because this isn’t an Australian story, until we make it so. 

Even though Hong Kong protests are getting less funny, we have to use this humour to make this serious topic approachable.

From the “Little Aussie Bleeder” to Newstopia: (Really) Fake News in Australia (Harrington, 2017)

Growing up in Hong Kong without steady access to English-language programmes (which meant I grew up not watching a lot of television until I was a teenager through the internet), my understanding of news satire was informed by watching Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on YouTube up until, well, now. 

That also meant that my understanding of news satire wasn’t to satirise the conventions of news itself – Oliver does criticise the media, but they often aren’t the main subject of his segments – but instead was a format for one to discuss topics and to be informed. The segments were meticulous and specifically designed as a call-to-action; by drawing attention to these topics, shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver were ‘edutainment’. 

I was also aware of the existence of late night television shows, in that there were hosts like David Letterman who’d have comedic monologues or sketches or interviews or performances, a variety show in the tradition of old television entertainment in the United States (for example, people like Milton Berle who’d host similar programs). However, I was raised with the notion of fictional entertainment for the primetime audience. In Australia, there was a larger emphasis on shows that weren’t necessarily fictional, but still scripted. The massive proliferation of reality television in Australia is interesting to me as scripted television is the default – Australian network television feels dominated by reality programmes. 

In Melbourne Tonight, mentioned in the reading, is seen by Harrington as “an important starting point for any discussion of Australian “fake” news” (pg. 28). Personally, I disagree with this because the late-night format is so different from fake news shows / news satire. Although I recognise the intent of subverting form that Harrington identifies, I still think that fake news programs in Australia cannot be set at a starting point from In Melbourne Tonight – especially given Harrington clarifies all Australian light entertainment television was affected. 

Compared to The Norman Gunston Show, which I think did affect the news satire genre. 

https://www.nfsa.gov.au/collection/curated/john-farnham-norman-gunston-show

Norman Gunston is very much like Stephen Colbert’s self-titled character, and Sacha Baron Cohen’s Ali G, Borat, and Bruno characters in that by making his character comedic – in Garry McDonald’s case, a bumbling, ill-informed and fame hungry host – he satirises elements of the variety show genre. In the linked clip, John Farham’s performance of You’ve Lost That Loving Feeling is ultimately stifled by Gunston’s attempt to share / steal the spotlight. His dubious vocal ability (and nevertheless persistent belief in it: “What a voice! Your’s is good, too” – Gunston to Farham), elaborate set, clumsiness, and ad-libs made Farham laugh so much he could barely make it through the performance. By making a fool of his character, he is directly satirising the idea of celebrity culture in relation to the host. Although performances were made for the benefit of the public to enjoy the music, in this case, Farham’s, hosts like Gunston interject to increase their own public visibility. They become celebrities themselves, and for Gunston, is part of his comedic persona. 

Compare this to something Ruth (you) showed us in class. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7L0MfhlowU

Stephen Colbert’s interjection to the song removes the audience from the song and seeks to promote his own celebrity, but I think isn’t necessarily as self-effacing as Gunston’s performance in the earlier clip. This type of clip is what I feel McDonald was trying to satirise. That isn’t to say Colbert makes fun of himself through his mere presence, but he certainly takes performing this song seriously and competently – the joke is his participation and competence alone. 

Or more accurately, this type of clip. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64iZmkaoueI

But honestly, James Corden is infamous for this behaviour (see: Carpool Karaoke). His show is what other shows seek to satirise.