Out With The Stupid, In With The Silly

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed that television is becoming stupider these days. Maybe people are getting stupider (I hope that isn't the case) or people just want to laugh without having to think too much. Whatever the reason is, I'm not a fan of this new 'stupid virus'. I mean, I will be the first to admit that I like a little bit of stupid comedy every once in a while, but it seems that every new sitcom, every romantic comedy, every reality TV programme is just tired, predictable and often mind-numbingly idiotic. When nearly every new series is just the same stupid series again and again, then we definitely have a problem.

Most people who know me know that I enjoy watching cartoons, the childish person I am, but I have a strong belief that cartoons are not all stupid and childish, despite still being written for children. One example, it still annoys me, even seven years along the line, is when a cartoon called Sheep In The Big City was pulled from Cartoon Network. The series had a more sophisticated humour, using literal comedy, oxymorons and relentless puns as well as comic references to TV broadcasting, breaking the fourth wall (something which I personally love in a comedy series, as long as it's not done to death), and it was popular with older audiences: not only was I a big fan, but both my parents sat down to watch it with me whenever it was on. The funny thing is that the premiere was apparently the highest-rated premiere for a Cartoon Network original series. Now, I know that every series must run its course, but it just bothers me that this programme got pulled, whereas truly awful cartoons like The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy (the newer, stupider episodes, that is), Robot Boy and Codename: Kids Next Door, kept their spot. Yuck.

Now the title for this blog might seem strange, but in my mind 'stupid' and 'silly' have two very different meanings (even though they can sometimes overlap).

Stupid leans more towards the moronic: the 'random' comedy that, in my opinion only succeeds if very well executed and expertly written. It tends to consist of (if done badly, extremely predictable) plays on words (double-entendres, strange euphamisms, etc.) and maybe even (heaven forbid) non-sequiturs. It's important to note that I don't hate all stupid comedy, some of it is quite good, for exactly what it is: a quick laugh at something stupid. It's just when it starts taking over that I have a problem. uk.rottentomatoes.com actually has a fairly good way of expressing what I'm trying to say here, that stupid comedy is basically "a kind of studied stupidity that sometimes passes as humor". Incidentally, it was describing the film Napolean Dynamite, a film which I watched on a very long coach journey and absolutely hated for its borderline insulting moronic 'comedy'. Then again, apparently most people who watched that film loved it, so what do I know?

Silly, on the other hand, is closer to intellectual, without necessarily being intellectual humour. A good example of silly comedy is Monty Python. Someone once described Monty Python as wonderfully weird yet sophisticated, which I suppose is a close enough description of silly comedy. One of the sketches even has the line "stop that, it's silly!". True, some of their sketches were terrible, but the good ones are so well known and so well loved that they overshadow and make up for all the flops (on that note, if you have never seen Monty Python, I highly recommend their YouTube channel here).

So, all I'm saying is that, while there is certainly still room in the media for the fun, stupid comedies, we need to also leave room for silly, intellectual or dark comedy, or any other forms of comedy that often get pushed to the side by the 'cheap laughs' crowd. I know it's not for everyone, but I also know that a large number of people would appreciate a little bit more variety in comedy.

Now I know that I come off as sounding very stuck-up pretentious, even condescending in this blog, but honestly it is difficult not to sound that way when dealing with this topic. I assure you, I in no way intended to offend anyone or be patronising, just to be relentlessly vindictive and cynical.

Examinations

Having just set my A Levels, I noticed a few problems in the system. I'm sure I don't have as much experience as some: university finals, driving theory exams and the like, but I'm not here to start a competition.

For one, they are very hard on the neck: unavoidable I suppose, but very inconvenient. Also they are a pain on the hand/wrist/arm, and legs tend to fall asleep as well. Physically, exams are not good for you, and they are mentally stressful as well. Try not to have a heart attack (which, incidentelly, was just about the only thing I wasn't asked about in my Biology exam).

That brings me neatly to my next point: I can't help but think that sometimes we learn things just for the exams, as we don't always learn exactly what something means, just the right way to phrase it to get the marks. This makes me feel like learning about transpiration in plants and atheromas, aneurisms, etc. has been a waste of time because they didn't come up in the exam. Although, knowing about the cause (and therefore prevention) of heart attacks will probably prove useful. Maybe that was a bad example, but you get the idea.

On the subject of exam technique; that's a real mission. Having to phrase an answer just right, paying close attention to the number of marks provided for the question, remembering to crowbar in certain key points and all the terminology can be tedious. Sometimes deciphering the exam paper and finding which questions you are supposed to answer becomes an exam in itself. In fact, that may not be a bad idea. If the candidate can't work out which question they are supposed to answer, or they don't follow the instructions properly, the examiner knows that they aren't A Level (or GCSE or whatever exam it is) material. To be honest, there isn't a lot of confusion about it: if you are given a choice of questions to answer, it seems logical to answer the one relating to the text or topic you have been learning about and revising.

Then there is also the problem that some exams seem to be testing our ability to memorise and regurgitate facts rather than actually knowing the material, and when that is happening, you know something has gone wrong somewhere along the line. However, the French Oral Exam I took in April wasn't the same as the GCSE last year, where I could just recite a passage I had learned (this year there was too much material to memorise) so I had to actually know the French and speak with some spontaneity, so the system does sometimes work. However, one of my biggest problems with Biology (particularly Unit 2) was remembering all the information, when I should have been focusing on how to understand and apply it to How Science Works.

True, exams are there for a reason, and they get the job done: hopefully I haven't failed all of my exams. But even if I have, a cardboard box shouldn't be too hard to obtain...