The recent State of the Union speech gave many of us Americans--at least 50 percent of us--a fresh, positive idea of President Obama and the direction of the country under his leadership. Luckily, the president may be able to rest his mind a little bit with respect to worrying about his reputation or personality being critiqued; half of the Gallup-polled Americans appear to like where he seems to be taking us as a nation. The kids in the back seat of his family van are calm for the most part. However, Obama himself and many other political figures (not to mention celebrity figures outside of the political sphere) have endured the jabs and the mockery of other individuals, typically comedians. In my personal opinion, the most fascinating and relevant of these genres of comedic satire of elected officials is that of impersonation. In this post, I'll discuss the relevancy of the art of imitating public political figures in contemporary society and ask some questions about just why this art captivates us humans and how much scoffing politicians may owe to its effectiveness in swaying an audience.
Although we typically see impersonation as a biased representation of an official to poke fun at his or her flaws, the art of impersonation itself doesn't necessarily have roots in man's malicious feelings towards another man or woman. I, myself can remember when my mother would be on the phone with my relatives in Quebec and, unable to speak or understand French at the time, I mimicked her high-pitched, sing-songy language and body language for fun. I never meant to make my mom feel bad; my four year-old self and 17 year-old sisters simply thought it was funny.
(By the way, Mom was a good sport.)
All the same, this brings us back to the implications for impersonating our more (or less, depending on your political alignment) respected political figures. Are all of these impersonations, say, by Tina Fey of Sarah Palin in SNL, meant to be negative? Many would argue that they have to be central in alignment in some cases. As Amy Poehler points out in her comment in the above article about SNL's coverage of the 2008 election, "the minute you sit down and say, "I'm going to write an important political piece," you're doomed." The public wants to be entertained, not necessarily swayed in any particular way. That may be why President Bush was so comfortable with allowing his most famous impersonator into the 2006 White House Correspondents dinner , surrounded by media men and women who could have "less-than-favorable" views of him. The comedian even points out, serving as President Bush's inner thoughts, more or less, that he has surrounded himself in this room with people who don't like him. He notes how these people are simply chomping at the bit waiting for him to have a verbal slip-up--another "new-cyuh-luhr" (nuclear) mispronunciation, for example. For most of us, the presence of this comedian/doppelganger not only showed the fact that President Bush was a good sport and wanted to appear as though he took his criticism lightly (whether that's a good or a bad thing), but that even a comedian who makes someone look bad doesn't necessarily have an adverse effect towards the imitated individual in the eyes of the viewer. Now, it would be hard to understand just what was the impact of this comedic impressionist on George W. Bush's career as President. It was probably minuscule. Perhaps before we contemplate what role humor serves in the realm of politics--perhaps as an escape, or to elevate one's sense of political righteousness, or simply as emotional therapy due to a negative state of national existence--we need to understand why we keep the art around at all.
Why do we even find impersonation funny? Is it related to some old gene or experience embedded in the more animalistic sections of the human brain? At least one other animal mimics things: the mimic octopus impersonates other animals so as to avoid predatory danger. Perhaps the human finds impersonation so hilarious because it doesn't need it anymore. Humans look so diverse and their needs are so distinct, in some cases, that the need to camouflage or impersonate other beings or objects has disappeared; to see someone do as such may have become so bizarre and otherworldly that it has become humorous. Please, readers, if you ever agree with me without doing research of your own, do not take that last bit to be scientific truth. It was merely a preliminary guess as to why we are fascinated by mimicry. All the same, as a follower of how we implement language and expression and as an impersonating comedian, myself, I think a knowledge of what triggers a human attraction to comedic impressions may unlock a wealth of new ways of generating laughter and positive or negative sentiment for or against a candidate. What if candidates themselves were to impersonate themselves, or advisers, or be more comedic in their outlook on politics when necessary? After all, Obama made his now-"famous" comment on the bureaucratic nightmare that is the jurisdiction of salmon waters only days ago, and it remains something that sticks with viewers more strongly than some of his more substantial talking points, such as, I don't know...uhh...education(?).
Please relay me some of your own opinions on the reason for the hilarity of impersonations! And no, I don't mean the illegal type of impersonation of you that ends up in your money being taken by a crafty criminal. That type is sad. If you have any comments on the more snarky, irreverent genre of impersonation, send them this way, please!
No comments:
Post a Comment