language is one of those tricky beasts that allows some to hide their truest thoughts in plain sight. most use it for good. semantics can be confounding. lack of knowledge keeps the ride of the words hovering above some of us as their suggested meanings are expelled without extended explication at a quick clip. and we indiscriminately move on assuming we know the intent.
comedians rework the word math until it both sounds and feels right. those listening who can make the connections, grasp how the sounds work together, get to actually see what’s truly meant by the collaboration of all the colors of the comedy rainbow. funny sounding words and phrasings fill the audible gaps with a different kind of laughter. together, they make for a smorgasbord of titillation. but each bite isn’t made of the same ingredients.
british humor tends to be deeper in its true nature. the wealth of words at the culture’s disposal is not unique to that part of the world, but their ability to wield it may be. definitely the ease of employ is. the fascination with a tool that we have complete access to everyday is astounding. the barriers put in the way to it are wholly unnecessary, but that we do highlights both the vast and subtle differences in cultural sensitivity. to words. and the myriad meanings behind them.
time is more commonly spent discussing the differences in comedy between men and women. it seems easier to do as it is usually more obvious. but a far larger variant exists. gender doesn’t inherently make us all that different. but awareness does. and ability to synthesize information. a lot of us forget those pieces of the puzzle when words hang us up.
there were two broadly known comedians we worked with who hailed from the uk. one had made a name for himself earlier as he scoured the justice system from the inside. the few in the states who knew of him laughed all the way through, as if we had been in on it, too. the more elite audience was smaller, but fierce. filled with loyal believers who guffawed at his mockeries of the holes he found. exploited. the accompanying amusement seemed as though it was powerful enough to encourage change. but sadly, it doesn’t appear to have been.
the other was flagrantly hoisted into the mainstream. as teenaged boys gleefully mimicked his fast language and arrogant sensibility, the older (mostly) men in charge celebrated the conveyance of the words. and stopped there. having that wordsmithing trait alone was enough to sell him. but, that we did may have changed the way we view each other. comedies tend to reach farther than we are led to believe.
movie quotes that are repeated for years, studied to ensure that the correct wording and elocution are used, keep the mentality of that setting current as a result. until a dastardly connection is made, or when unsavory actions are found out about, those words live on. and the actor they’re attributed to is forever affiliated.
as lives are lived, and worlds blossom and change, fans keep their favorites who gave them those soundbites in that box. regardless of subsequent choices made, those projects are forever the benchmark they’re measured against. that can turn people into a lot of things when they identify with those pieces. images.
the assumption that came from them both being british and in our stable was that they were similar. but, with time, it has become obvious, irrefutably evident, some of the ways in which they are not.
one bowed out of the juvenile rat race early. his distinctive perspective pops up here and there, and he is far from gone. but his contribution to our world vision is one of his evolution rather than his stagnation. the other makes waves wherever he goes as he figures it out. those parts of their personas appear to be hard-wired. unchanging.
both are some kind of family man now, so presumably they’ve adjusted a bit to accommodate that layer of their lives. we’re all older. some are wiser. they’re both usually still some kind of funny. but what they get behind, how they convey their humor, is tremendously different. what brought them to us at that company in the first place it seems has changed them.
like some of the most notable sitcoms, while we strived to give their acerbic observations the rightfully warranted attention, we apparently did it wrong. people held onto the wrong parts. the editors of the features we arranged may have known better, but clickbait headlines usurped our intentions inclined towards honesty.
a lot of people are often involved in what is credited to one person. especially famous types. some of whom know themselves better than others. set boundaries. respect their own, and those of others. some don’t know better sometimes. which, in the end, makes for some fantastical stories.
as do our learnings of those lessons. when we let ourselves laugh at ourselves. or, at least, the parts of ourselves we see on the screen. celebrities. characters. which are ours to use as our guinea pigs. at least we know more about hospitable animal testing now.
new life of old nicole 