If satire gets people to think about life/world around them, then it has succeeded in its purpose.
Ex. The Interview satirized North Korean dictator with successful assassination attempt on Kim Jong-un, in the movie, at least. North Korea then proceeded to hack into Sony without mercy.
"Dave Skylark and producer Aaron Rapoport run the celebrity tabloid show "Skylark Tonight." When they land an interview with a surprise fan, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, they are recruited by the CIA to turn their trip to Pyongyang into an assassination mission."
Ex. Je suis, Charlie: (French for I am Charlie)Two French artists assassinated for depicting Muhammad. However, they are not the only ones to have been threatened or killed in history; to depict Muhammad in any way, shape or form is considered a terrible crime in Islamic faith. They must have known the risks. So why did they do it?
The tag #jesuischarlie has become one of the most popular news hashtags in Twitter history in just over two days. Je suis Charlie was embraced worldwide, used in music, displayed in print and animated cartoons (including The Simpsons), and became the new name of a town square in France.
So clearly, both of these stories have got people thinking. Could it then be argued that it has succeeded as a satirical piece? And if not, then what can we glean from it?
Perhaps we can learn to use satire in a less dangerous way. Then again, we can't exactly have life-changing events without some kind of danger, can we? Whatever the case, it may be best to consider the people that are being satirized, and how they may react. Proceed with caution, and be ready for the consequences, should things get ugly.
Arianna L.
Ex. The Interview satirized North Korean dictator with successful assassination attempt on Kim Jong-un, in the movie, at least. North Korea then proceeded to hack into Sony without mercy.
"Dave Skylark and producer Aaron Rapoport run the celebrity tabloid show "Skylark Tonight." When they land an interview with a surprise fan, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, they are recruited by the CIA to turn their trip to Pyongyang into an assassination mission."
Ex. Je suis, Charlie: (French for I am Charlie)Two French artists assassinated for depicting Muhammad. However, they are not the only ones to have been threatened or killed in history; to depict Muhammad in any way, shape or form is considered a terrible crime in Islamic faith. They must have known the risks. So why did they do it?
The tag #jesuischarlie has become one of the most popular news hashtags in Twitter history in just over two days. Je suis Charlie was embraced worldwide, used in music, displayed in print and animated cartoons (including The Simpsons), and became the new name of a town square in France.
So clearly, both of these stories have got people thinking. Could it then be argued that it has succeeded as a satirical piece? And if not, then what can we glean from it?
Perhaps we can learn to use satire in a less dangerous way. Then again, we can't exactly have life-changing events without some kind of danger, can we? Whatever the case, it may be best to consider the people that are being satirized, and how they may react. Proceed with caution, and be ready for the consequences, should things get ugly.
Arianna L.