The Art of Riffing - According to Axon

"Let's all go to the looooobby! Let's all go to the looooobby! Let's all go to the looooobby, to get ourselves a treat!" On the grainy theater screen the chocolate bar, popcorn, candy, and soda cup danced along singing those hypnotic words. Many a poor sap found himself overpowered by the catchy tune and was soon dancing up the aisle to the nearest pimple-faced teen to demand a tray full of overpriced concessions on which to gorge himself. On the other hand, as this theater trailer played it's spellbinding song, several kids in the audience were snickering amongst themselves as they passed each other zip bags of peanut M&M's, trail mix, pre-popped popcorn, cookies, and other treats they snuck into the theater in their backpack, pocket, or purse.

Yes, I was one of those cunning nonconformists. While neighboring moviegoers scoffed or gave a pious look of disgust we would just smile and enjoy the fruits of our forethought. As delighted as I was to play my part in defying the concession obsession, nothing brought me more joy than my flagrant disobedience to the next pre-movie standard. As the slide took form on the enormous white backdrop I would laugh to myself at the absurd suggestion it presented: 'Silence is golden! Please do not talk during the movie.' "YEAH RIGHT!!!!" I would yell before the image had even faded away. A rousing blast of, "SHHHHHHHHHHH!!!" from the crowd around me only increased my amusement.
You see, from an early age I have often viewed things objectively. In the case of movie pop-culture I am not one to follow the whims and wonderment of movie critics who's stereotypical reviews include phrases such as 'The best film you will see this year!' .....Honestly? The best film I will see all year? It's MARCH! What crack-pot came up with that ridiculous claim? Even more maddening was when a friend or family member would quote this movie critic's words in an attempt to sway others to accompany them to the show.
I, of course, had a different motivation for going to the movies. To make fun of them! A good comedy can often stand on it's own. However, many comedy fans are missing out on the true humor hidden in poorly executed dramas or old sci-fi films riddled with absurd dialog ripe for the riffing.

Not A New Concept

Some may be wondering, "What is 'riffing'?" Essentially it's providing personal commentary in which you point out the flaws, heckle, and wisecrack about what you are viewing or listening to. In recent years it has been more specifically identified with providing such commentary during a film, however it has broader origins.
There is a thin line between riffing and being annoying. Often this is determined, not by what is said, but by the mood and view point of the one who's listening. In what way? Well, if you think about it, stand-up comics are really just 'riffers of life'. They take the ordinary things of life, magnify an aspect of its flaws, and spin a joke or two about it. When performed by true artists, even somber subjects can be chronicled in a way that leaves the audience roaring with laughter. However, the same joke, outside of the comedy hall, may be met with scorn and displeasure. Again, the mood and frame of mind of the listener are key.
Are stand-up comics the only ancestors to the art of riffing? By no means. Riffing has been a part of life for eons. I say confidently that during millions of conversations and speeches throughout history men have made their own poignant comments, if not verbally, then in their hearts. The art of cracking wise at poorly executed or ridiculous dialogue has been carried on from ages long past by the truly humorous at heart who enjoy discovering and magnifying the quirky aspects of every day life. Look even at the works of Shakespeare, the prime example being the play Henry VI Part 2 : Act IV : Scene II. Here we find the rebel Jack Cade trying to convince the masses to join his rebellion against the British throne by putting on airs and elevating himself in their eyes. While trying to prove before the crowd he was of noble birth and married a woman of nobility, one of his own men, Dick the Butcher, unabashedly carried on a riffing out of the corner of his mouth with his companion, Smith the Weaver. It went like this. Note that the word 'aside' in brackets indicates talking, not to the crowd, but only to Smith the Weaver:


CADE
We John Cade, so termed of our supposed father,--
DICK
[Aside] Or rather, of stealing a cade of herrings.
CADE
For our enemies shall fall before us, inspired with
the spirit of putting down kings and princes,
--Command silence.
DICK
Silence!
CADE
My father was a Mortimer,--
DICK
[Aside] He was an honest man, and a good
bricklayer.
CADE
My mother a Plantagenet,--
DICK
[Aside] I knew her well; she was a midwife.
CADE
My wife descended of the Lacies,--
DICK
[Aside] She was, indeed, a pedler's daughter, and
sold many laces.
SMITH
[Aside] But now of late, notable to travel with her
furred pack, she washes bucks here at home.
CADE
Therefore am I of an honourable house.
DICK
[Aside] Ay, by my faith, the field is honourable;
and there was he borne, under a hedge, for his
father had never a house but the cage.
CADE
Valiant I am.
SMITH
[Aside] A' must needs; for beggary is valiant.
CADE
I am able to endure much.
DICK
[Aside] No question of that; for I have seen him
whipped three market-days together.
CADE
I fear neither sword nor fire.
SMITH
[Aside] He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.
DICK
[Aside] But methinks he should stand in fear of
fire, being burnt i' the hand for stealing of sheep.


This, my friends, is a prime example of riffing. Though some of the humor may be obscured by the Anglo-Saxon tongue, you can clearly see the key elements. Smith and Dick wittily take the words that are spoken in all seriousness and turn them into the old-timey equivalent of 'mamma jokes', and 'burns'. And these little zingers were mostly fit very neatly within the pauses of Cade's speech. (While we'll discuss that tactic more later, note that this is a talent that separates the masters from the amateurs.) Personally, I find this banter to be way more entertaining and comical than the famous joke found just a few lines down:


DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Moving forward a few centuries, riffing made a huge splash into the world of theater during the time of vaudeville, the predecessor to movie theaters. Riffers could occasionally be found in other seating areas, but mainly were the patrons of 'the peanut gallery', so named due to their being the cheapest seats who's occupants would mainly consume the cheapest fare offered, peanuts. This section would often get loud and rowdy, flinging their salty snacks at sub-par performers accompanied by long strings of clever sarcasm. The commonness of this behavior from the cheap seats gave birth to such opening phrases as, "No comments from the peanut gallery!", an ominously familiar precursor to my pet peeve, "Silence is golden! Please don't talk during the movie."

Why, though, were the cheap seats so often the base of operations for the unmerciful talkers of smack? My theory is this: It all comes down to brain power. The more intellectually articulate, the greater the odds they would buy a ticket in the peanut gallery. Why? Because they were too smart to just follow the prevailing opinion of the masses and accept sub-par acts as quality entertainment. They could see through the rouse of 'pop-culture' and ascertain their own opinion of a show or act. (Yes pop-culture existed in the days of vaudeville. In fact it has always existed but simply was not given that name until our modern era.) As they did, flaws would be readily evident and so they could do one of two things. 1) Get irritated. 2) Make fun. The well rounded, jovial individual would view this as an opportunity to exercise the mind instead of being bored out of it and come up with one snappy one-liner after another. Yet, the shrewd riffer would also know there would eventually be consequences. How long do you think you could sound your sass without attracting the rage of the serious and straight-laced patrons? Sooner or later, you could expect an early escort out to the street by a not-so-friendly usher. That being the case why would anyone pay more than the minimum for a show they expected to be disappointed in and, eventually, thrown out of? Therefore, I hold to the theory. The astutely clever would pay no more than base price for a rousing evening where they would, in fact, be the most entertaining portion of the show.
Yes, riffing has been an underlying feature of world culture for years, though many stick-bums would turn their nose up at such a suggestion. Despite the efforts of the morbidly solemn, it will remain a mainstay of independent culture.

Riffing - It Does A Body Good

Would you believe me if I told you that riffing brings benefits to your brain? It's true! Scientists have produced several reports on the benefits of laughing, creating jokes, and meditating - all of which are essential for great riffing. Helpguide.org reports that "Laughter is good for the brain." It continues,

"You've heard that laughter is the best medicine, and that holds true for the brain as well as the body. Unlike emotional responses, which are limited to specific areas of the brain, laughter involves multiple regions across the whole brain. "

Furthermore, listening to jokes and working out punch lines activates areas of the brain vital to learning and creativity. As psychologist Daniel Goleman notes in his book Emotional Intelligence, 'laughter…seems to help people think more broadly and associate more freely.' In addition to these intriguing facts, the report commented on the benefits of meditation as well. If you expect to riff well you have to spend a bit of time meditating on your subject, pondering over how one part relates to another as well as associating it with something humorous. The report states,

"Meditation works its 'magic' by changing the actual brain. Brain images show that regular meditators have more activity in the left prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain associated with feelings of joy and equanimity. Meditation also increases the thickness of the cerebral cortex and encourages more connections between brain cells—all of which increases mental sharpness and memory ability."

Note the portion 'encourages more connections between brain cells'. This is often a major road block that prevents people from riffing. The most common excuse I hear is, "I'm just not quick and witty enough. You think of stuff to say right away, but I don't think of things until minutes even hours later."
In a way, they are right. At present they may not be quick enough because they haven't 'paved the way' between certain brain cells. It's as if they are driving in a car and the street comes to an abrupt dead end, yet another 100 yards ahead of them they can see their destination. The fastest way would be to drive straight ahead, but there is no road. If they insist on moving ahead they will have quite a bumpy ride and possibly get stuck. The more modest decide to turn around and backtrack to the main road to reach their destination which takes several extra minutes.
That's sort of how our brain works. Until we associate two things that we are familiar with we cannot 'drive' directly from one thought to the next. We have to first make the connection. Until then we can only follow a pathway of thinking that has been previously laid. If we try to make the connection on the fly, it's like driving on unpaved ground. Bland riffs and poorly articulated commentary are the results of this type of forced thinking. Meditation, however, is our chance to blaze new paths of thinking and close the gaps of understanding as to how things interrelate. Afterward we have new roadways, smoothly paved, just waiting to transport thoughts from one point to the next instantaneously.
Thus comes the seemingly 'quick witted' quality that is greatly envied and mistakenly attibuted to a blessing of birth. Really, it's only those who neglect meditation that find themselves deficient of speedy wit.

How to Do It

So far we have examined the what, why, when, and even where of riffing, but we still haven't talked expressly about what you probably are most interested in: How do you riff a movie? What are the techniques? Which methods only draw crickets and which will have your audience choking on their Cracker Jacks with laughter?
First of all, if you are not prepared to spend a serious amount of time and effort on your project, the results will be mediocre at best. Notable also is the fact that you will have to develop a cast-iron stomach for poor quality entertainment. The average riffer has to plod through a nauseatingly dull film anywhere from half to several dozen times along the journey from pre-production to, "That's a wrap!". Taking that into account, if you're still up for the challenge here are some key tactics to riffing.

Take note of the comic box below. The essential ingredients for great riffing are all there. You will note that, as we discussed earlier, you will need to spend some time meditating on an idea to see what farcical gems are hiding inside. Root around for the humor. You'll find it if you explore beyond just the surface thought or statement.
Not to be underestimated is the concept introduced in the lower right corner of the image below. Stay with a thought or statement for a while and see where else it leads. Often the funniest jokes have several degrees of separation from the initial subject. This is also the nest in which running gags are born, valued as 'golden eggs' within the riffing community.

So did you follow those clear-cut instructions? If you are staring blankly at this screen right now do yourself a favor. Walk into the bathroom and flush your head in the toilet a few times. Don't worry about the stench. Seeing that you have such a large deficiency of humor it's not likely you have any valuable friends, except for the one who's willing to give you a voluntary swirly.
Now that you're a bit more alert try reading the instructions again. If you still don't get it then throw your TV and computer out the window along with your brain since all three are being sadly under utilized and only taking up precious space.
As for the rest of my audience, congratulations! You have taken your first step into a larger world of laughter. You are in the company of great wit like that of Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, and more recently, Mike Nelson, and Joel Hodgson.
Of course, like any other comedian you now have the undertaking of developing a bit of your own style. The worst choice would be to adopt someone else's style, especially that of a famous comedian. First of all, that's just cheap and second, only the very best impersonator would be able to pull it off......and then it would still be cheap. Just be yourself and tell the jokes like you would to a niece or nephew. The key is confidence. If you deliver a line like it's the most comical phrase you've heard in years, then you may just convince your audience to feel that way, too.
As far as what's funny and what's not......well it's still going to be a matter of your listener's opinion. You might think to yourself, "This is my funniest joke of the whole movie!" but your audience could fail to see the humor. Don't get discouraged. Even the pro's get that response occasionally. Take, for example, Frank Conniff, the actor who played "TV's Frank" in the hit series Mystery Science Theater 3000 . Now working on the project Cinematic Titanic , note his experience:

At one point in “Doomsday Machine,” one of the astronauts says, “Remember those solar panels on the outside of the spaceship?” I responded with this riff: “…that we used to love so much when we were kids.”
I can’t explain why, but I thought this was one hilarious riff. When we rehearsed the movie, I could never say the line out loud because I was always laughing. When we recorded the DVD, I had to rerecord that line several times until I got it right because I always blew the take from laughing so hard.
Therefore, it must be a funny line, right? I mean, after all, I've been working professionally in the comedy business for almost twenty-five years, so I bring a great deal of authority to the science of what is and isn't funny, right?
Well, on a hot, muggy night last summer, Cinematic Titanic riffed “Doomsday Machine” in front of a live audience at the outdoor John Anson Ford amphitheater, right across the 101 from the Hollywood Bowl. This was a very special night for me, an all-time highlight of my career in live performance.
The audience was incredible. They sent waves of unconditional love across the footlights. They laughed at everything. Everything! They laughed at the sounds our scripts made as we turned the pages. They laughed when we cleared our throats. They laughed at our bottled water. And hey laughed at every riff we made in the course of a two-hour evening.
Well, almost every riff.
When the moment in the movie where the astronaut said, “Remember those solar panels on the outside of the spaceship” approached, I prepared myself. I didn't want to blow the line like I always did so I really focused my energy so that I wouldn't laugh and thus trip over the line that I new would just slaughter the audience. And at exactly the right beat, with perfect comedic timing and clear articulation, I precisely delivered the line, “…that we used to love so much when we were kids…”
And the tumultuous response from the audience was…
Nothing.
Complete and utter silence.

Not a single human being sitting under the stars that night laughed at the line that I thought was one of the funniest in the script. And this was a crowd that had thus far shown a willingness to respond with joyful guffaws to everything we said.
Except for that one line. My favorite in the script.
As the years pass, I find that the more I learn about comedy, the more I find out how little I know. I don’t know if I've properly articulated how poorly that riff did on the night of that show last summer. To really experience how badly that joke bombed, you had to be there.
_{Source: Cinematic Titanic - http://www.cinematictitanic.com/showguide.php?showname=Doomsday_Machine}

One area that could give you trouble is the timing of a joke. You may have the funniest line of our modern era, yet if it grinds against the grain of comedic timing you will be committing the greatest crime since Enron. The average Joe will blindly sit there staring at the screen and after a long pause say, "...................................What?" Fellow riffing artists observing your train-wreck will sweep their hand over their face with a ghastly sigh of pain.
To avoid this Chernobyl-level melt-down, here is a common rule followed by the best riffers. If the joke doesn't fit in a pause in the dialog, don't say it. There are some exceptions where the dialog following has no crucial value and the listener will not care if they hear it or not, however, leave that call to the professionals! Gain some experience first, watch a lot of other riffer's work, and eventually you will see what is 'culturally' acceptable in this regard.
Now, though, let's break it down to the simple basics of movie riffing 'how to'. Here are 10 steps:

1. Select a movie that you can't take seriously even though the director is trying to be. You don't want your audience to be too interested in the movie. Then again, if it's exceptionally boring they may not feel your heckling outweighs the pain of watching this horrible flick. Movie selection is a key first step in determining your riffing career's success or failure.
2. Get a friend or two to join your riffing group. Solo riffs are simply not as funny. However, you will need to take into account who you ask. Be sure they are committed to the cause, or you could find yourself alone and depressed in your basement with only half a movie riffed.
3. Watch the movie several times looking for potential riffing opportunities. When are there pauses in the dialogue? Does the movie drag with long periods of silence or just background music? At what points are there absolutely retarded events or statements?
4. Take notes. When you find a part that's dull or dumb and you think of a good riff write it down. Many fantastic jokes have been lost due to simple laziness. You may think you will remember the joke, but you probably won't. Write it down!
5. Pause the movie and meditate on an idea. If you see potential for a good riff but it's just not coming to you right away, pause the movie. This is like the proverbial 'trembling stick' when searching for subterranean water. You've felt something. Now you need to stop, kneel down, and dig for it. So think about what was just said (or done) in the movie, even rewinding and watching the clip several times. What makes the thought funny? Possibly nothing, but could there be a related matter that is? [For more on this tactic re-read the comic box above.]
6. Come up with several types of jokes. Don't make them all one-liners. Sing a tune that has laughable connotations. Banter between you and another riffer, in a sense spring boarding off of each other's jokes. Some of your lines should directly relate to the film while others can be so obscure that only the elite in your audience will laugh as their friends whine, "Heeeeeey, I don't get it....."
7. When you have all of your jokes assembled in at least a roughly drafted script, prepare to record your riff-track (your commentary audio file). I suggest using a laptop or PC to ensure good quality and easy post-production compilation. If possible, listen to the movie on your computer with headphones and a separate microphone. This will allow you to record your jokes in perfect time to the film without hearing the movie as background noise in your riff-track.
8. Using purchased or preloaded recording software capture your riff-track. Make sure to test your microphone and the quality of your recording before wasting minutes or hours of your precious time only to find your final product is unusable. Remember, you don't have to record it perfectly in one take. You can edit the sound track later and re-sync it to the movie.
9. Compile your finished product using a 'movie maker' type program. While the free programs may do the job, there are some nice extras that you will have to sacrifice if you don't purchase a more advanced program.
10. Upload your film to a web-site or burn a hard copy. Don't forget, there are strict copyright regulations. You cannot distribute or sell altered versions of any copyright protected material. Therefore, unless the film or clip you are riffing is open source, or 'public domain', it is usually smart to offer the riff-track on it's own. The end user can then sync the sound file with their own copy of the movie. Believe it or not, in this case copyright says, "No harm, no foul."

Is Riffing for You?

Like any new hobby, it will take a bit of time to test whether you really enjoy riffing or not. Hundreds have entered into the riffing arena simply to fade out with the ending credits of their first film. However, a growing cult following has spurred on hundreds more to stick with this unique form of comedy and expand their reputation as household names among fans of the genre.
What claim will you stake in this flourishing field of funny? Perhaps one day your name will be housed in the yet-to-be-constructed 'Riffing Hall of Fame' next to the greats, Mike Nelson and Joel Hodgson. In the interim, keep me updated with your progress and feel free to use the comments section below as a sounding board for your riffing questions, ideas, and escapades. Also, keep up with our latest videos by subscribing to our youtube page:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheHayven1?ob=0


-Axon

The Art of Riffing - According to Zerom

Those who know me and my compatriot, Axon, are familiar with our love of making fun of movies. You don’t even have to know us well to know this fact—it’s practically a point-of-conversation the first time you meet us. It’s a hobby that I personally have been interested in for 15 years. And we two are not alone in our love of this sport; it has a long, traditional, cult following. However, explaining to someone not acquainted with the activity what is involved can be difficult at best, extremely awkward at worst. Thus, I would like to take an opportunity to outline for our less-informed friends why this hobby is so intriguing to us and the intricacies of making the most of a movie-watching experience.

Let me begin by addressing some Frequently Asked Questions and complaints from individuals who just ‘don’t get’ the art of riffing.

1) What’s so great about making fun of movies?
Those who have a natural draw to sarcasm and satire as a form of humor can see the benefits almost immediately—after all, riffing caters to those particular styles of humor. However, other characteristics are used and exercised when riffing. For instance, riffing is generally considered an art (a topic I will expound on more later), and thus is an exercise in creativity. Just as an actor starring in the actual movie, riffing is all about presence, timing and substance. Riffing is far more than just reading off jokes about a situation—it is a practice in effective delivery, often requiring split-second timing and proper inflection of voice to ‘sell’ the joke.

2) Why watch a bad movie when you could watch a good movie?
While others might provide a slightly different answer, the one I can offer is this: Making fun of a bad movie is more interactive than just watching a good movie. While watching a good movie is...well...good, it must be a very good movie to make you forget you are watching a movie and draw you in. This is the only way to give the feeling of interactivity. On the other hand, you can take any bad movie and instantly give it depth by making fun of it. Rather than trying to get sucked into it, you keep your distance and focus more on the film, as an object, rather than the actual entertainment. People have no problem grasping the concept of commenting on a work of art hanging in a museum—riffing just involves ‘commenting’ on a series of moving images with sounds.

3) It’s annoying when people are talking during the movie.
This is the biggest complaint I hear about riffing, and it is based more on a misconception than anything—to wit: People assume we actually care about the movie. My wife constantly pulls this one out on me. (She’s a great example of this too, as she actually likes riffing, but usually only if it’s a movie she’s seen before.) “I’m trying to watch the movie,” she (and others) might say. The problem is that I too am watching the movie, but not because I’m trying to get a story out of it. Rather, I’m dissecting what is being shown with a cynical attitude, ready to jump on the movie for any lack of quality it might display, and usually there's plenty. Sometimes a movie that is mostly moronic will have a ‘nifty’ part, and I might get caught up in the movie at that point—there might even be few if any riffs during these moments. In general, though, I try to keep myself ‘emotionally distant’ from the movie. In so doing I might make an enemy or two out of those who are attempting to 'watch' the terrible 'B' movie, but it just makes the experience much more enjoyable when I do. The point? If you want to watch it—watch it. Just come back to it the second time and lampoon it.

4) Isn't 'riffing' just a fancy word for 'making fun of a movie'?
You know how there are individuals out there who consider themselves artisans of a sort just by performing the art? For example, many people consider Nickelback and Creed to be bands. I do not classify them as such. “They perform music, even if it is insipid,” one might argue. “Whether you like it or not, that makes them a band.” This is not true. Performing music makes one a performer, but it does not make a person a musician. What is the difference? A musician is an artisan, which, by definition, means that they have an understanding of the art they are attempting to partake in. Knowing what a ‘C’ chord is does not make one a musician. Playing a ‘C’ chord does not make one a musician. Knowing that ‘G’ sounds great after ‘C’ does not make one a musician. A musician is one who fully understands that they are creating art and thus are inspired to take their time and use ingenuity in creating something unique and thoughtful that will attract quality fans who have true appreciation for their art form. A musician is not someone who allows music producers and 'audio mixologists' take the same repetitive song with the same chords and rehash and regurgitate it into a 'new song' just to fill up an album and to appease the throng of 17-year-olds looking for something to feel good about because their home life is a wreck.

Similarly, it's at this junction where we find the demarcation between making fun of a movie and actually riffing a movie. Just sitting in front of a television and pointing out dumb things in a matter-of-fact way is not riffing. Riffing is making a thought-out, commentary-style observation based on a presented circumstance. It is providing the funniest (or in some cases, most practical) line for a given opportunity. Of course, if attempting to riff in an improv manner, such as when watching a film for the first-time, no one should expect the best riffs. The quality of a good riffer is not to just state the obvious, but to come up with a funny retort. Example: My wife and I found ourselves watching a ‘Made for SyFy movie’ (instant dreck) called Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus. I mean, right there you know you’re in for choice riffing material. The most memorable moment was when ‘Mega Shark’ leapt out of the ocean and dragged down an in-flight en route jet liner. Not getting into the absurdity of the situation (which is a dissertation in itself), the way that one would comment on this scene shows the depth of one’s riffing ability.

Example 1 “Look at that! Sharks can’t do that in real life! That is so stupid it makes my brain hurt!”

Some may classify this as riffing the movie. However, there is no weight to that statement outside of just directly attacking the scene. Nothing about it added to the experience of watching the movie, and outside of an observation, nothing witty was said. Imagine watching that scene and, instead, hearing:

Example 2 “I’ve heard of flying fish, but this is ridiculous!”

Rather than just making a straight observation about the quality of what is shown, a joke is made that improves and brings humor to an otherwise dreadful scene in the movie. The first example is a contentious comment that separates itself from the movie, while the second example almost becomes part of the experience of the movie.  It gives reason for the audience to stay tuned to what they are watching. It also includes a level of entertainment value.

Some may argue that there is no right or wrong answer to how a riff should be handled. Both comments above do work, but you should tailor a joke to your specific style of riffing. For instance, I’m partial to making outside (and often obscure) references to other things, people or movies:

Example 3 “Man, these Jaws sequels are really getting out of hand.”

Or, take the first example of just making an observation about the scene in the movie, but improve upon it as a wry comment:

Example 4  “You know, if I were afraid of flying, this would be the last thing I'd have envisioned bringing the plane down.”

It isn’t so much that a person riffs because they are just a sarcastic, curmudgeony soul, but because it is an art form of comedy in itself. It truly is nothing more than an extension of the old ‘straight man, funny man’ duo team: The movie is the straight man (as it is trying to be serious), while the riffer is being the ‘funny man’. In those instances, the straight man isn’t really trying to be serious, but for the sake of the joke, he has to come across that way. Treating a movie as the straight man in a comedy makes the movie watching experience completely different. As my old saying goes, “All movies are made to entertain—it’s just that some of us are entertained in different ways.”

Riffing—Art or Science....or Both?

Even most riffers are unaware (unless they get far too into it, such as myself) that there are actually two disciplines of riffing. Technically, the second discipline isn’t really even riffing in the strictest sense—I only include it as such in this article because it closely mirrors the same goal as riffing. If one were to categorize it, the second discipline of riffing would fall more under ‘comic analysis’ or ‘color commentary’. It basically translates to bringing out inaccuracies or stupidities about a medium (i.e. movie) with a focus of drawing attention to the inaccuracies as the point of attention. In other words, it's the act of drawing attention to the movie’s inherent flaws as the source of humor rather than the comments made by the commentators. The difference between these two points can be blurry to some, and oftentimes they will be non-existent. After all, the flaws of a movie may be the fuel to riff it (Art); Conversely, a comment made from a viewer may well be included in an essay-style commentary about a movie being analyzed (Science). At its core, the simplest way to explain the difference—the art of riffing would basically focus on the delivery and the presentation (usually audibly) while the science of riffing boils down to a breaking down of logical and cinematic fallacies (usually written).

To use established examples of each, compare Mystery Science Theater 3000 or their new project www.rifftrax.com to the essay-like commentary at http://jabootu.net, and other sites like it. At the former example, you will find that the riffs will come as in the examples mentioned in the previous subheading—comments made along with a movie in a comedic style, often with good timing and sharp wit. The jokes might come in the form of observations about the scene, cutting sarcasm against the characters or the plot, perhaps even banter among the riffers. It comes akin to the two Muppets in the balcony on the old episodes of The Muppet Show.

The latter example, however, reads more like a column you’d expect to read in a newspaper or a blog. Focusing more on the irks of the movie, this type of riffing brings out why the movie should be viewed as funny, even when it clearly was not supposed to be. Take the ‘flying shark’ incident mentioned earlier. Rather than a witty repartee, in this instance, one might point out, not just the stupidity of what just happened, but the poor acting skills of the passengers in the plane (for instance, I did not once ever believe the stewardess in the plane was a stewardess, but rather an ‘actress playing a stewardess’), the cheesy and obvious CGI effects, the poor direction, the generic music, etc. It would be tantamount to reading a humorists’ article as they describe the experience of watching the movie. As you can predict, while the two forms of satire are attempting to reach the same goal (humor and entertain at the expense of a poorly made movie), the way it is delivered is different. I personally view the two different disciplines of riffing as equally interesting and both worth their weights in gold as far as their effectiveness. Interestingly, I’ve found those who are the 'writer type' seem more often to be fond of the 'artistic' movie riffing form, whereas the movie buffs usually don't care for the written movie commentary. In other words, not many like to read for which we can thank (in yet further irony) the media.

The art of riffing has actually been around for thousands of years, according to English majors who apparently view performance works in Ancient Greece as satire of already established works. (I guess those plays started off with the theme song line ‘In the very distance future, Thousands of years A.D…’)

To me, it is both sad and great that the field is still only in ‘cult’ status—sad that not everyone fully appreciates the art form as I do; great in that it is not over-saturated. Face it, certain hobbies and activities just aren’t as fun as they once were because of the sheer influx of people taking part in them. I still like having something I call my own, and to have someone like my buddy Axon, to do it with is just that much more excellent. After all, what good is making fun of something if there isn’t anyone to appreciate your quirky rejoinders?


 -Zerom

Children's Books - What Makes Them Good? - Part 1

There are fewer events that will change your entire life than having a child. One would assume that whether these changes are 'good' or 'bad' depend on the parents, but that's over simplistic. Some changes are inherently and always good—and those are obvious. Other changes are pretty much of the 'bad' variety in every case—again, pretty obvious. I have about a dozen unfinished projects (both creatively and of the 'home improvement' variety) that will no doubt continue to remain unfinished for yet another year. Still, I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression, here. I love being a parent and have perhaps the best 15-month old in the history of good babies.

As mentioned above, being a parent has robbed me of my time used in creative purposes. Again, not complaining, as I'd rather spend time with my little one. However, something has regularly presented itself to my attention over the last year or so—Children's Books require a certain talent to write. This surprised me. Prior to having a child, and thus subjected to reading dozens of them, I was always under the impression that any college drop-out with a vocabulary of two hundred words could spawn a book, then find an art school drop-out to draw a few abstract fuzzy drawings of a biped brown bear to accompany it. Instant cash flow. I had considered it myself a few times in the past—except I don't know any art school drop-outs.

However, I have come to the conclusion that more than just free time and a rhyming dictionary are necessary to write a children's book. This may be hard to grasp for someone who has read less than 100 children's books in the last year, so I will have to provide some sort of evidence. Keep in mind that I could provide more examples or even talking points than what I have below, however, I really don't think I could handle the mental drain of perusing all of my daughter's books just to find examples for my little essay here.

Actually, there are a number of points I could talk on, but found that I really went overboard with the first topic, so I'll mainly dwell on one point in this article, then perhaps come back for the others another time.

A Good Children's Book is Not Automatic.

As mentioned above, I would almost assume that once a person has learned to read at a third-grade level, they should be able to write at a preschooler's level. I mean, it should seem fairly obvious, right? If you go to architecture school and learn how to read complete blueprints for a two-story house, you should be qualified enough at that point to draw up plans for a tree house for your 10-year-old son. It's a simple 'applied science'. However, I'm slowly picking up on the fact that 'applied sciences' do not work when it comes to 'arts' such as book writing.

One could make the argument, “Nothing important is ever said in a children's book. You're not really providing advanced information. Just write about what sounds farm animals make.” (My daughter has more than 10 books just on this one subject—apparently this is the children's book writer's entryway feat.) It's not even like children's books are long—especially the ones for two-year-olds or younger which I have an abundance of right now. You can even just make up stuff. They won't really know the difference.

Still, even with all of these seemingly obvious points, there seems to be a certain skill needed to write an effective children's book. I'll start by comparing two: One is a classic book that my wife specifically bought because she remembers reading it when she was a little girl; The other is a pocket-sized Disney book featuring Minnie Mouse.

For the sake of space, I did not scan in the entirety of the classic book, Goodnight Moon, because it is quite lengthy. That, however, makes the comparison even more egregious. It is, perhaps, three to four times in length from the latter subject, yet is clearly written by someone who knows what they are doing. I will, however, type out a good portion of the text from Goodnight Moon.

 

In the great green room,

there was a telephone

and a red balloon

and a picture of the cow jumping over the moon

And there were three little bears sitting on chairs

and two little kittens

and a pair of mittens

and a little toyhouse

and a young mouse

and a comb and a brush and a bowl full of mush

and a quiet old lady who was whispering “hush”.

This was about half of the book. The second half revisits all of the characters, saying good night to them.

Now, why does this work? To an average adult reader, it seems rather boring and doesn't present anything informative. However, there are a few things that are present here that otherwise stand out when missing from a children's book. First, the objects presented in the book are simple things that children would want to learn about because of their common existence—things around the house, common pets, etc. Second, when read out loud, the text flows smoothly and almost has a song-like quality about it, this being a very important quality in children's books. Third, though I didn't include any pictures, the illustrations were colorful, but simple and not overbearing. Finally, the entire book stays on a simple and common topic which matched the title of the book, teaching children how to organize their thoughts properly.

Let's compare this to a shorter Disney-sanctioned children's book that I just can't stand:

First of all - and I'm sure this is just me - but entitling a children's book geared for ages three-and-under with a phrase that teenagers of the 90's used is just sad. It also doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The book, as we will soon discover, is completely random; yet, nothing presented in the book gives the impression that Minnie is a saucy valley blonde that would use 20-year-old conjecture such as is suggested by the title. Even her hand is gesturing with that irreverent, devil-may-care attitude which would accompany the phrase. Evidently, the writer was a person of this mentality and tried to imprint it on the main character of the book. The problem being that the character is an established 70+ year old icon of children's books who would never do this! I mean, if Disney allowed me to write a story of their rendition of Peter Pan and I decided to write him like he was Justin Beiber, I'm sure a few people would have a problem with this. (P.S.-- if you work for Disney and my last sentence 'gave you an idea', please call me so that I can talk you down from said idea immediately.)

OK, perhaps I was wrong about the 'Oh, Please' not being central to the plot. The very first thing that the book mentions Minnie doing is dressing up with a spoiled rich brat. She even changed the bow she's wearing on the front cover. Does she a different bow for every outfit? She's teaching my daughter bad habits before she can even dress herself! And why on earth is Minnie Mouse trying to seduce my daughter (who, of course is the target audience for this book)?! I mean, that little grin she's doing there—slightly inappropriate. Although, not necessarily as inappropriate as that dress. Somehow, seeing a legendary female cartoon character wearing a backless dress seems a little 'advanced' for my young daughter, even if it is just a mouse.

Also, Mickey is apparently drunk and seeing stars. Great standards you're setting for guys my daughter should hang out with.

Here, we can see that Minnie is less valley girl and more... WHERE ARE HER CLOTHES?! Above, I was taken aback that a prim and proper lady like Minnie would wear a backless dress. Here, she is apparently wearing a grass skirt - total. She's also apparently totally fine with it, as she's giving a cheeky grin, and is totally getting into the whole hula thing, as her hips indicate that her hula gyrations are in full swing. Again, what is this book teaching my daughter?!

Immodesty aside, this is still a weird page. Daisy is wearing the oddest flamenco ensemble I think I've ever seen, especially given her bundt cake pan hat. Meanwhile, I can't take my eyes off of Minnie's feet. Those are some huge feet, man. Like, does she need to go to the doctor and get those things checked for gout?

Minnie the Cheerleader hmm?.....Perhaps I need to go back to my earlier statements and revise my thesis. Minnie has once again fit into the mold of a typical 'valley girl'. So, the writer is attempting to follow suit with her title theme. It's just... Minnie is so poorly cast for this theme. Minnie just doesn't strike me as that kind of person. I mean, can you picture her counterpart, Mickey, wearing a Letterman jacket, football in hand, leaning on a locker, pushing some nerdy kid down the stairs for his lunch money?

.....Ok, moving on. We've also ascertained that Minnie likes to dress up, but here we really get the impression that she goes the whole nine yards (no pun intended) with props and whatnot. I guess if you're going to be nonsensical, at least have fun with it. By the way, why is there a gigantic hole right in the middle of Cowgirl Minnie's hat that allows her ear to fit through?

This is the last page, and the last straw. So far, this admittedly short book has been poorly written. This page just doesn't even seem like it was written by the same person. First, what—is Minnie trying to make me fat? If she is, she isn't doing a good job. I mean, that cake isn't even finished. There's icing missing on more than half of it.

The biggest problem is the break of symmetry. The one thing this book had going for it was a half-hearted attempt of a theme (even if it didn't match the title). Look over the last few pages. Each left/right page has a reflective commonality. Dressing nice. Dancing. Costumes. These two pages have nothing to do with each other. Is the writer implying that Minnie will only like me if I eat her cake? If so, Minnie is a very shallow friend.

Also, Minnie all of a sudden has a tail. When did Minnie get a tail?! I just did a quick image search on Yahoo for 'Minnie Mouse' and every single picture that came up had her with a tail. So, my question really should be, “Where has her tail been in this book?” Did the artist just suddenly remember at the very end that this iconic character has a tail? And that whole 'She's been wearing costumes' thing doesn't work either, because in over half of them, she's wearing a skirt. There's no way not to have a tail in those pictures. (Which brings up the eternal question—how do characters with tails wear pants?)

The point should be fairly clear, though. Children may be simple because of their inexperience, but that is no excuse for writers to be lazy. Parents have to read these books, too, and they pick up on these little things. Not to mention, writing inferior material only teaches our children that they can get away with doing things in an inferior way.

I actually had other points to make as well, but got a little carried away with my over-analysis of this book. Perhaps I'll save the rest of my rant for part two. At least I have another topic to talk about sometime in the near future.

- Zerom

Pete Rose Bet On Baseball - Does It Really Matter Anymore?

I know what you are thinking. How can I, someone who in no way tolerates or condones gambling of any sort, begin to argue that placing wager after wager on the game of baseball doesn't matter? It seems inappropriate coming from someone of that background. Well, I want you to note that I'm not asking whether it mattered at all, but whether it matters anymore.

Any discussion of betting and baseball instantly harvests a sickening feeling in the stomach of baseball historians who truly treasure the sanctity of the pastime. Two simple words - "Betting" and "Baseball" - when linked together zombify us into a stupor impenetrable by reason or explanation. Nothing seems to be able to beat back the dreaded subject of the Black-Sox Scandal as it looms like a dark cloud in our minds forbidding any further details from altering our instinctive, trauma-induced verdict of 'GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!'. However, if one is able to quell such biased leanings for a moment, we may see a stark contrast in the instance of Pete Rose betting on baseball and certain members of the 1919 "Black Sox" team who accepted a bribe from gamblers for throwing the game - losing on purpose. Yes, I think you've guessed what I'm getting at.

Pete Rose never stooped to the level of altering the course of a game, performing at anything less than 100%, or asking anyone on his staff to do so. He was not looking for a 'sure thing' to bet on, by orchestrating an intentional loss so he could bet against his team or even for the opposing team. In an interview in 2007 Rose said,

"I bet on my team to win every night because I love my team, I believe in my team. I did everything in my power every night to win that game."

This puts an interesting differential into the equation when you are discussing how this relates to the act of betting on baseball. True, all members of the baseball organization are made well aware of the consequences of gambling on the game. Yet, does banishment for life - the same sentencing handed down to the eight members of the "Black Sox" charged with throwing the 1919 World Series - seem an equal and just ruling for Pete Rose? Hal McCoy made a crucial statement that seems to paint Pete's betting for his team as black as the Sox's efforts to lose intentionally. He said that, "a major problem with Rose betting on baseball, particularly the Reds, is that as manager he could control games, make decisions that could enhance his chances of winning his bets, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the game." Well I have a major problem with that flawed reasoning. Rose bet on his team to win. What manager in his right mind doesn't make decisions that could enhance his team's chances of winning? If such a manager were to exist we would gladly kick him out of baseball for jeopardizing a team's competitive ability. As much as Pete Rose liked to win he couldn't fathom betting against his team. He wagered that his team, the Reds, would win which had no more effect on the game than would the fan in the stands who bets his buddy ten dollars that the Reds will beat their opponent. It's no different than the group of kids down at the local school baseball diamond who take such pride in their personal abilities they are not afraid to call out to their heckling friend on the pitcher's mound, "You don't think I can do it, huh? I bet you dinner at [insert local eatery] that I smash your 'fastball' over the fence!" In the end, money is exchanged - or perhaps dinner is paid for by the loser of the bet - based on the turnout of play which was neither aided nor inhibited by the bet placed.

Pete was not a fool, at least in the matter of calculating the odds. Yes, in the matter of betting on baseball he was indeed foolish, but need I regress? If Pete Rose truly was convinced that he had an 'over .500' team then he would win in the long run by betting on his team every night. As long as he bet consistently and the team met expectations, his bet would turn out in favor of 'the house', such as in seasons 1987-1988 when the team averaged .528 over that two year period. However, like most people passionate about something I would venture to guess that Pete was not consistent in his betting. He likely bet different amounts depending on what he had in the bank and how much he liked the odds against the team they were matched up with. He may have even been greedy on occasion and made an 'all-in' bet and lost a huge chunk of change.


That's the dark side of gambling which encapsulates why baseball has every right to discipline those who take to the practice. It invites greed and temptation to tweak the game in a way that favors your pocketbook to a sport trying to uphold integrity, discipline, and dignity in a world that falls far from that description. Yet, what is the purported reason that discipline is administered? Is it not to train, correct, and refine those who receive it? Or are we to believe that no one can learn from their mistakes and thus we must inflict a merciless dose of everlasting banishment for every offense?


As much as I admire Pete Rose, I must be honest on this point: I agree with baseball's initial decree to cast Pete Rose out of baseball indefinitely. That may shock you as I'm in the middle of arguing why he should be allowed back into the game. However, I am in no way so fanatical about the man that I can look past a grave error in judgement, and that is when he refused to admit the charge against him of gambling on baseball. How can you be confident that someone will not repeat their mistake if they have not acknowledged it and outlined a process in which they plan to eradicate the habit from their lifestyle? I feel that strong punishment should be leveled against those who know the consequences for their actions and yet do not admit to their wrongdoing.


Enter performance enhancing drugs. While I agree that gambling should not be tolerated, I believe that performance enhancing drugs are even more grotesque in that they unfailingly alter the course of games causing the true fan to always call certain plays, records, and even entire seasons into question. I find it so interesting that even though the potential for performance enhancing drugs to tarnish the game is just as great if not more so than betting on baseball, those who are caught taking them are simply suspended for a certain number of games and then allowed to play again. This is even when they deny they did anything wrong after testing positive to a banned substance! The player doesn't even have to admit that he did anything wrong or make a public apology and he's allowed back into the game!


Regardless of whether Pete Rose has been treated equally and fairly in the administration of discipline, the fact is that he now has admitted his mistake, apologized, and said it is something he deeply regrets and plans to never repeat. To date he has served a 3599 game suspension. How does that stack up against the 50 games Ryan Braun is facing for allegedly taking a performance enhancing substance in a year when he put up MVP numbers? How about the 100 game suspension Manny Ramirez received last year for a second violation in two years!?

If baseball's 'Puritans' are insistent in bringing out the pitchforks anew to go witch hunting could we at least look for someone who has violated the sanctity of the game of baseball within the past two decades? Or will they never tire of burning the same 'witch' at the stake in Pete Rose?


The time has come to re-evaluate the necessity for Pete Rose's punishment to continue any longer and realize that it has already accomplished it's purpose. Any continuance will only serve in deflating the joy of his loyal fans while allowing the controversy surrounding his banishment to continue to hang over the game. The time has come to reinstate Pete Rose into the game of baseball.



- Axon

Official entry in the ScottsPicks.com Writing Contest