I might be a little punchy, but Cunk on Earth just made me laugh out loud.
EDIT: OK I’m pretty sure it’s not just me, this is hilarious. She’s a less awkward Ali G basically, and relies less/not at all on shock.
2 Likes
I’ve only seen the first episode but it made me laugh harder than anything in a long time.
1 Like
This show was not on my radar at all but I also really enjoyed the first episode. I am not sure the style of humor plays well for everyone though.
For sure. My wife didn’t like it at all. It’s good for those that enjoy their British humor monotone and rapid fire. She thought it was cringe humor but I didn’t get that impression at all.
Yeah, I wouldn’t call it “cringe” humor either, cringe humor usually means someone is being so awkward or inappropriate that it’s almost painful to watch. Cunk is much lighter than that, and clearly many of the interviewees get that it’s a bit of a joke.
Agree with both of you. I do not like “cringe” humor, basically can’t watch Nathan for You. But Cunk isn’t that at all. The joke is on Cunk, not on the interviewee.
2 Likes
Yeah, this is a major factor. There’s nothing condescending or obnoxious about the attitude toward the people she is talking to. It’s silly, not hateful. Contrast with some Sasha Baron Cohen stuff, for example, where there is palpable disdain for the people he is basically making fun of.
2 Likes
My wife and I have really been enjoying this in part because we also like to watch the type of show she is lampooning.
The philosophy guy with the big head (or tiny face) who tries his best to take her questions seriously really cracks me up.
2 Likes
Yeah. Also it’s clear that thr interviewees are in on the joke.
I’m guessing they’ve agreed to stay deadpan, and give as serious answers as possible.
1 Like
Oh yeah
1 Like
A week later and I am still thinking about episode 3 of LoU. For sure it is now in my top 5 episodes of tv ever.
4 Likes
1 Like
A fun frame to trick bigots into watching the episode and rooting for Offerman’s character, but this article reminded me of people who criticize stories for representation as endorsement without paying attention to who or what the story is criticizing.
There’s a now twenty year old moment where Kevin Smith is talking at a college to a young lesbian, who says hey Banksy in Chasing Amy is pretty homophobic. Don’t you take any responsibility for that? And Kevin points out that he made it as clear as he can that whatever laughs you get from Banksy, he is the obvious villain and his homophobia is wrong. Beyond that, he can’t help it if some people take something away from it he didn’t intend.
I feel like that’s what’s happening here when the NYT writer says stuff like conservatives ought to love when Offerman’s character screams but the government ARE all Nazis! I am skeptical how many conservatives wouldn’t shake their head at this new attempt to convince them that piss down their leg is just rain.
1 Like
This comes up often with Walt in BB.
He is SUPPOSED to be evil and you are SUPPOSED to hate what he becomes doesn’t really resonate with me when the show goes out of its way to make him sympathetic and badass and smart and ends the penultimate season with “I won”. He even gets to die on his own terms.
I remember reading an article in Time by Poniewozik (I think) about how liberals should support Jack Bauer, and that was actually a lot more persuasive.
1 Like
I agree with the experience of BB but I don’t think for the same reasons.
Stories like BB are not aspirational narratives except mostly to people who are already like that.
For most people, it’s sensational voyeurism. That’s epic entertainment and is the foundation for my favorite kind of fiction, ie psychological thrillers with unreliable narrators who are often psychopaths in hiding. But I don’t end BB or a Shari Lapena novel thinking hell yeah, I want to be just like that person, even if I spent the entire story rooting for them.
I understood who the story was saying is good vs evil, or whether that context is at all relevant to the story and experience of that story.
My parents forbid me from watching The Lion King because they said it was endorsing evolution. You just can’t help it when some people or even a lot of people respond to a story in a way you can’t control.
Not sure I agree. I think plenty of people have been bullied and/or desired a higher station in life. Obviously, the specific method wouldn’t be one that many would take, but using one’s wits and resolve to achieve power seems aspirational for most people.
Well of course. I don’t think anyone wants to die after alienating all their family and friends, and being responsible for so much death and destruction. It’s tragic in that sense. But a dramatic ascent would be desirable for many.
Sure, but a character having a goal and pursuing it against insurmountable odds is just good storytelling. It’s how we engage audiences and cultivate their investment. Not the same thing we were discussing imo.
1 Like
I actually think the “I won” moment is a great example.
Its not a cheer line. Its horrifying. To win he had to blow up a nursing home and poison a small child (who also happens to be his partner’s surrogate son). If he doesnt do either of those things his plan to murder two men via bomb doesnt come together and he doesnt “win”
“I won” shows the absolute bottom of Walt’s well of depravity. He actually believes doing those things were right, because he is a monster now
Edit: 3 men. Sorry Tyrus
1 Like
Sure it is. You root for that character. If they’re rough around the edges, so be it.
Another example is Don Draper. Do you think anyone does anything other than pump their fist when he tells Ginsberg “I don’t think about you at all”? The fact Don’s a jerk, and Weiner really wants you to hate him, doesn’t mean much.