Hardly Impressive
|
It occurred to me this morning that I should try to explain the appeal of my comedy, in order to undo the warping influence of stars and broadcasters on its consumers. For a long time, it was believed that my comedy depended on TV stars when it was TV stars who depended on it. People see an actor in a well written comedy sketch and think the actor is funny, but the same actor would be found annoying in a poorly written comedy sketch. In such instances, it is the material of the sketch that is funny, not the person who performs it. Only rarely, when the laugh depends on a skill peculiar to the performer, such as John Cleese's 'contortionism', is it independent of the script. This was not the case for any of the comedy scripts stolen from my Blogger account. They were all funny on their own. This does not make me funny either. I'm far from hilarious in person. My scripts are only funny because I work hard on them. The goal of a comedy script is to make its reader laugh and I approach the problem intellectually. I may have a vague idea of a script in my head, but the actual words I end up using in it are found through a labour intensive process. Words are the presentation system for my comedy, not actors. There are countless less effective choices for the words and phrases I use to write each sketch, all of which must be eliminated on the way to finding the best ones. It takes time and effort. It's a lot easier to use half-assed language, but I am a perfectionist. I often find that I must struggle to help paint my scenes with words. Reducing their complexity to the simplest words and phrases is a struggle. Yesterday, for example, it took me almost half an hour of concentration to coin the obscure phrase 'a square field'. That last scene was a lot easier to look at than to put into words, believe me. My comedy scripts are good because I worked damn hard on them. And all those TV stars ever worked hard on was showing off and lying to everyone with my hard work. I hope you're examining my most recent inadvertent comedy reconstruction which targets the evil of networks, called the Netherwork. (It's in my comedy index on this page: Comedy Index: mi-oh.) Perhaps you'll see how networks weren't just out to steal my humour in 2007, but to utterly destroy its meaning. Whole sections of these scripts were omitted where they might have caused any discomfort to network executives. These executives, I gather, are the same who set the whole world population against me, but then they couldn't take even the slightest little ribbing from my comedy scripts. You couldn't have more destructive hypocrites in control of your TV's content, and I bet you could trace a lot of societal problems to their evil influence. For example, it looks like they want us to viciously reject artists who work hard to please us and gleefully accept lying psychopaths in their place. They want your children to admire liars and thieves as role models. They want you to worship bullshit and call it Jesus Christ. And they want to charge you money for all this. And what's a news story? How about when a not so rich citizen is constantly attacked by countless rich stars. No? Don't let the networks ruin your brain function with their presentation of this crime. Recapping, they stole my comedy because it is well written and effective. My scripts are funny on their own, and thereby capable of making performers look funny. I am not that funny, just an artist who works very hard on his comedy writing. And networks were out to do more than just steal my laughs; they tried to destroy my work's true meaning, perhaps because deceit is the foundation of the artificial universe they want to extend to their hapless viewers. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| © 2018. Statements by David Skerkowski. All rights reserved. |
Comments
Post a Comment