http://youtube.com/watch?v=hE5TkHCtlYI
This has to be one of the single funniest commercials that I have ever seen. Furthermore, its hilarity can be explained almost entirely by its use of low humor: funny faces and incongruity. At the beginning of the commercial, you see a normal birthday party for children who look to be about five or six years old. Some of them are wearing birthday hats and looking extremely excited. In fact, they are looking much more excited than you would expect. Thus, within the first seconds of the commercial, a tension in built up and you know something strange is going to happen. When it is announced that Torii Hunter of the twins has arrived at this otherwise ordinary birthday celebration, the children go absolutely wild. Incongruity theory combined with the release of tension built up in the opening explains why this is so hilarious. It could hardly be expected that the centerfielder for the Minnesota Twins would randomly show up to an otherwise ordinary birthday party. What makes this even funnier is Hunter’s entrance onto the set. He opens the door ever so slightly, peeks into the room and makes a ridiculously excited look. It is completely unexpected that Torii Hunter would be even close to as excited as the children over this event, but it appears he is. Our expectations of the situation were so much lower than the outcome, thus it is funny. Adding to the excitement and hilarity of the moment is the fact that the birthday boy makes the most surprised/happy face you could ever think of and Torii Hunter continues to make funny faces while pointing at him. If you were to asked what you would expect in this situation, I don’t think you would expect a highly choreographed entrance by Torii Hunter involving music, funny faces and an otherwise normal birthday. Despite this initial surprise incongruity, the commercial then begins to set a pattern of equally outrageous behavior including Torii Hunter dancing around a chair and bobbing for apples. In the final scene, Torii Hunter hits a piñata apparently breaking a window and hitting a car. The reactions of the children are all abnormal. Rather than surprise, they all look unhappy. This is also highly surprising, as you would not expect five year olds to be that unhappy about a fairly funny occurrence.
While not even considering the argument of this commercial, it’s obviously really funny. However, the commercial is also implicitly arguing that going to Twins games is fun. By showing Torii Hunter as a fun-loving guy involved in an experience that involves surprise and incongruity, the makers of the commercial are making an analogy to the fun that can be involved in a baseball game. After all, a baseball game involves surprises, tension and sometimes-unexpected results. By using humor to make viewers enjoy this commercial, the creators are giving them an experience that is meant to make them want to go to Twins games.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
My Apologies to The Onion
It has come to my attention that the post that I have recently written was based upon an article written by an Onion author in 2000. I assumed that it was contemporary becuase I take for granted that links on the homepage might not be recent. Thus, my argument is the false one. My apologies to The Onion.
The Onion's Fallacy of Argument
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28209
The Onion is a satirical newspaper that makes fun of otherwise serious political content in the present day world. In this article, the author uses the readers assumed knowledge of world events to argue that sovereign nations act for their own benefit and that the reasoning behind international action is often an excuse.
By using Russia as an example of a country gone wrong, the author manages to deflect attention from his real subject, which must be America considering the audience of the Onion. The author’s use of fake quotations from political figures from around the world serves to illustrate a self-centered argument that runs throughout the fake story. Thus, the author is mocking the reasoning given to the public for international action. Rather than admitting that they act in selfish ways, countries often make up reasoning such as the reasoning in the article. A specific example of this that the author is no doubt alluding to is American action in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Much of the rhetoric that comes out of the White House has been very similar to the reasoning given by the author of this article for invading Russia. A main example of this is humanitarian reasons. The main difference between invading Russia and invading Iraq or Afghanistan is that it would clearly not be in the United States’ national interest to invade Russia given their military might. The author banks on the reader realizing this and through comparison, realizing that that the Iraq war is ridiculous and based on selfish self-interest.
The author makes a serious fallacy of argument, however, in this article. He seeks to make an analogy between the obvious ridiculous situation in the article and current US domestic policy. However, the premises of the analogy are false. The author is using a faulty enthymeme to persuade his audience. Essentially, he is say that countries who say that they are using military might to help another country are acting in self interest, thus the US is acting in self-interest in Iraq and Afghanistan. The implied term is that the US is acting in self-interest in Iraq and Afghanistan. This may or may not be true but the author has not proven it in the article. Rather, he has assumed that the readers would make the connection and take it for granted. This type of humorous rhetoric is very common in The Onion. While it is without doubt funny, if one takes the political message to heart without further examination, one will fall prey to a fallacy of logic.
The Onion is a satirical newspaper that makes fun of otherwise serious political content in the present day world. In this article, the author uses the readers assumed knowledge of world events to argue that sovereign nations act for their own benefit and that the reasoning behind international action is often an excuse.
By using Russia as an example of a country gone wrong, the author manages to deflect attention from his real subject, which must be America considering the audience of the Onion. The author’s use of fake quotations from political figures from around the world serves to illustrate a self-centered argument that runs throughout the fake story. Thus, the author is mocking the reasoning given to the public for international action. Rather than admitting that they act in selfish ways, countries often make up reasoning such as the reasoning in the article. A specific example of this that the author is no doubt alluding to is American action in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Much of the rhetoric that comes out of the White House has been very similar to the reasoning given by the author of this article for invading Russia. A main example of this is humanitarian reasons. The main difference between invading Russia and invading Iraq or Afghanistan is that it would clearly not be in the United States’ national interest to invade Russia given their military might. The author banks on the reader realizing this and through comparison, realizing that that the Iraq war is ridiculous and based on selfish self-interest.
The author makes a serious fallacy of argument, however, in this article. He seeks to make an analogy between the obvious ridiculous situation in the article and current US domestic policy. However, the premises of the analogy are false. The author is using a faulty enthymeme to persuade his audience. Essentially, he is say that countries who say that they are using military might to help another country are acting in self interest, thus the US is acting in self-interest in Iraq and Afghanistan. The implied term is that the US is acting in self-interest in Iraq and Afghanistan. This may or may not be true but the author has not proven it in the article. Rather, he has assumed that the readers would make the connection and take it for granted. This type of humorous rhetoric is very common in The Onion. While it is without doubt funny, if one takes the political message to heart without further examination, one will fall prey to a fallacy of logic.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)