‘Monty Python’ is a male group of imaginative actors and script writers whose purpose is to entertain a wide audience with British comedy that contains both surreal and dark humour as well as satire for serious issues. Language features, techniques, devices and genre will all be applied to analyse a dialogue from a ‘Monty Python’ script, The Argument Clinic.
The text is mainly comprised of three characters, “The Man” (Who wants an argument), “The Angry Man” (Who works in the abuse room) and “The Other Man” (Who works in the argument room) The Argument Clinic is a dialogue which pertains to the Man who goes into an unconventional clinic, looking for an argument with one of the so-called ‘consultants’ who seems to be rather obscure. Before entering the correct room, the Man enters the ‘room for abuse’ where the Angry Man shouts out unwelcoming and hurtful comments to the Man. After finding the correct room for arguments, the Man is then very disappointed to find out that his version and the Other Man’s version of an argument do not correlate.
The text is dramatised intensely with the absence of a narrator to comment. The text was originally broadcast as a skit in 1972 on BBC (Mullany & Stockwell 2010:175). Exclamative sentences can prominently be noted within the text during the Man’s and the Other man’s ‘argument.’ An effective example would be, “I came here for a good argument!” In that particular sentence the exclamation mark indicates the Man’s frustration and change in intonation. As with most of the exclamative sentences in the text, all intonation indicates raised voices and contradicting statements.
As this text was originally performed by ‘Monty Python’ who were initially comics, the writer’s intention to humour, becomes ...
... middle of paper ...
...e can also note the presence of strategies taken upon by the characters. The Other Man takes up a defensive strategy stating that it is possible for a full argument to be purely contradictory. The Man on the other hand, excluding all his frustration, becomes slightly persuasive at one point to try and prove his definition of the term, ‘argument’ to the Other Man, but the persuasion fails and once again both men lapse into an argument on which the basis is, “Yes it is!” and “No it isn’t!”
The dialogue through-out the text is unusual and is not common at all in everyday conversation. This makes for yet another uniquely ‘nonsense’ script that is characteristically ‘Monty Python’ and which challenges the reader’s perceptions of normality with an absurd idea. However, despite the absurdity of the situation, the dialogue is easy to read, and thus thoroughly entertaining.
Blog 33 – 3 of the weirdest slot games you are ever likely to come across
One of the unconventional styles of argument he uses surprisingly is humor. When Dave Berry says, ‘drivers in your city are all homicidal morons” he is trying to grab the reader’s attention by letting
This scene, of escalating argument, presents a different type of humor. While the first was a slapstick, exaggerated and dark humor, the argument is more sarcastic, intelligent and cutting.
There are many common themes mocked in the movie “Monty Python the Quest for the Holy Grail”. Religion, Knightly Behavior, Noble Quests etc. I believe the movie showed how the old stories and plays kind of exaggerated these themes, and they aren’t as mighty as they are made out to be. I think Knights and Kings weren’t really as bold and courageous as stories told and this movie kind of showed it. There are exceptions though, as in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, he took the challenge and stuck his neck out so no one else would have too and he did it bravely (he had a little bit of a scared moment) but he also admitted he was wrong for messing with the Green Knight’s wife. But in Monty Python, it showed how Knights also did things cowardly, as when Lancelot went to save the “damsel” in distress and killed almost everyone in the castle.
According to Tannen, she refers to the hostility within communication as “The Argument Culture.” It has become a war on words that continues to thrive off of conflict, animosity and tension. Tannen addresses the idea of debate, disputes, attack and criticism as a comprehensive list of words to describe her thesis. Tannen uses rhetorical devices by formulating the main points of her argument. She did this by convincing her readers and incorporating facts and reasons. Tannen states, “In close relationships is it possible to find ways of arguing that result in better understanding and solving problems. But with most
Steve Almond’s “Funny is the New Deep” talks of the role that comedy has in our current society, and most certainly, it plays a huge role here. Namely, through what Almond [Aristotle?] calls the “comic impulse”, we as a people can speak of topics that would otherwise make many of uncomfortable. Almond deems the comic impulse as the most surefire way to keep heavy situations from becoming too foreboding. The comic impulse itself stems from our ability and unconscious need to defend and thus contend with the feeling of tragedy. As such, instead of rather forcing out humor, he implies that humor is something that is not consciously forced out from an author, but instead is more of a subconscious entity, coming out on its own. Almond emphasizes
Crusius, Timothy W., and Carolyn E. Channell. The Aims of Argument: A Text and Reader. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.
To argue is to attempt to convince a reader to agree with a point of view, to make a decision, or to pursue a particular course of action (Eschholz, Rosa, and Clark 429). In an argument there are three main elements: ethos, logos, and pathos. In ethos, the author tries to build his/her character to the audience. In this particular essay, Mr. Keillor does not build his credibility very well. The only information he reveals is that he is a democrat, which can be found in paragraph one of the essay. The details of Mr.
In the book, In Praise of Comedy, by James Feibleman, he mentions, “Where tragedy deals with the substance of power, comedy is more concerned with contradictions revealed in the form of the absence of power. Thus tragedy is largely an affair of feeling, the feeling of the inexorable power of fate, while comedy is largely an intellectual affair, being concerned with the issue of logical contradictions.” (Page 77). The contradictions Feibleman mentions can be identified as major comedic tools both in Aristophanese's play, “The Clouds,” and in the short film, “A Dog's Life,” by Charlie Chaplain. Vicki Janik, Henri Bergson, and Leon Golden identify many of these tools through their published works, all of which can be applied to, “The Clouds,” and, “A Dog's Life.”
Anderberg, Birgitte, and Vibeke Knudsen. "The Human Comedy." In Toulouse-Lautrec: The Human Comedy, 11-17. Munich: Prestel, 2011.
introduced us to the two different kinds of exposition ;( Moon & Birdboot and Simon & Mrs Drudge). Our aim for this exercise was to understand the different uses of exposition; the very easy, flowing. subtle exposition of Moon and Birdboot compared to the "in your face" comic exposition of Mrs. Drudge. To do this we first read through the text in our for, this had already been read thought to us although it became clear we had little understanding of it, by acting the scenes. we were bringing them to life, therefore increasing our understanding.
Logic affects our lives everyday. We use it both subconsciously and consciously to make decisions which can be as important as our careers, or as insignificant as what to eat for lunch. Logic can also be used in other ways. Ironically, others’ bad logic can result in us learning something just as much as we learn from our own bad decisions. This is shown in Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail.
The clown contributes towards the humourous entertainment of this play through his numerous puns and jokes. He is a source of laughter, not because we are humoured by his "foolery"; for he proves to be no fool at all; but rather because he amuses us with his brilliant wit. Having mastered the art of jesting, Feste is sensitive of his profession, always aware of the circumstances he is in and the appropriateness of this folly.
If there is one way to bring a smile to someone’s face, it is laughter. Funny jokes, comical stunts, sarcasm- Every person is different when it comes to what makes them laugh. Some find dry humor comical. Others think sarcasm or joke-filled ranting are the best. ‘Comedy’ is such a broad term, broad enough to allow everyone to find something they find comical. In fact, ‘comedy’ includes a specific type of drama, one where the protagonist is joyful and happy endings are expected. Comedy is like a drug; it allows you to escape reality. When we say the word ‘comedy’ in the present, we are generally referring to a type of performance which provides humor. However, in its broadest sense, comedy has only one purpose: comedy makes people smile and
The term ‘comedy of menace’ is applied to a group of plays in which comedy is intertwined with elements of tragedy. The term was first used by David Campton as a subtitle of one of his plays, The Lunatic View: A Comedy of Menace. Though both comedy and tragedy are based on incongruities and contradictions, the driving force in comedy is humour and the driving force in tragedy is horror and menace. In comedy the humour is generated through dramatic techniques such as divergences, repetitiveness, surprise, illogical events and statements that often lead to outcomes which are quite contrary to what the audience expect and thereby cause laughter and amusement. In comedy of menace, two contradictory