Character Study

Jesse Tyler Ferguson as Mitchell in Modern Family

            Struggling with what really is the right and accepted thing to do in Modern Family; Jesse Tyler Ferguson’s depiction of Mitchell contributes to the comic effect with the use of subtle humor, intriguing diction, and the ability to be embarrassed by others so easily, while also displaying him as a round character.

            Through the use of subtle humor, comic effect is produced by the way Jesse Tyler Ferguson says his lines, and specifically what his lines happen to be. While talking about his sister Claire, Mitchell says that “Claire is the son that my dad never had”, which ultimately means that he is also, the daughter his dad never had too. During the Lifetime Supply episode of Modern Family, Mitchell won an award and decided to put it on the mantle, which thus created Cameron, played by Eric Stonestreet, to display one of his trophies that conveniently downgraded Mitchell’s new trophy based on size. Mitchell knows he was in fact “acting like a 14 year old girl”, but he could not help himself when Cameron never shared the fact that he had won so many awards previously and decided to show them, when Mitchell won and displayed his. The subtle dry humor that Mitchell uses helps portray himself in a way about his attitude that is not easily seen; it shows a deeper meaning. He believes he is better than Cameron, but he also will do anything to help him out regardless of him not believing everything Cameron says.

            The diction of which Mitchell utilizes is intriguing and highly hilarious, even just on the surface. As soon as they adopted a daughter, Cameron decided to get a friend to decorate the room by painting himself and Mitchell as “fairies”. Mitchell thus said to Lily, “Yes, we pulled you out of your home in Vietnam, but don’t worry, things will be perfectly normal here. Your dads are floating fairies”, as if she really knew what he was saying and that if being floating fairies would do anything for her at all. Having never told his family about adopting a child when he went to Vietnam, Mitchell became immediately nervous because all he could envision were “flashbacks to when [he] told [his] family [he] was gay”, which obviously did not go well by these choice of words, but the audience can read that it was obviously an awkward, but amusing time for the viewer, all based on his choice of words. However, knowing Mitchell to be one that often overreacts, one can envision that the situation of telling his family he was gay was not as bad as he makes it out to seem, but it still having the possibility to have been an awkward time for him.

Having been often embarrassed by situations he has been in with his family and with Cameron, he does not know how to handle these situations as well as someone would think he would having continuously gone through these awkward times. Mitchell often believes Cameron “takes things a little too far”, which in turn causes him to be embarrassed with the aftermath and while during the action. One time when he and Cameron accidently “locked [their] baby in the car” all he could focus on when talking to the emergency assistant was that “people [were] judging [them]!”, while he should have been focusing more on the safety and well being of his daughter, Lily. Mitchell was embarrassed also of when in the Punkin Chunkin episode, when Cameron insisted that he could launch a pumpkin the length of a football field and ultimately failed, but because he does not like seeing him fail, he insisted with every other critique in the family, to help the “believers” to actually get to launch the pumpkin the length of the football field.

Having often prided himself as better than everyone else, Mitchell appeals to the comic effect by being a well rounded character, being very sassy, nonchalant and straightforward. Also being very derisive, often creating stabs at others, helps create humor for everyone viewing the show because often people find making fun of others, is ultimately funny. Jesse Tyler Ferguson plays the ultimate role in creating comic effect in Modern Family by what he says, but also with his reactions to the other characters and the actors that play them.

Analysis of A Modest Proposal

            Often times, writers use comedy to talk about a serious topic with the idea in mind to spark a change in the world. It is a relatable way for readers to understand and to be interested in a topic. Shifting from a serious to sarcastic tone in A Modest Proposal, Jonathon Swift utilizes absurd diction, humorous imagery, and supportive logos to suggest a way to deplete the population by having a “child make two dishes”.

            Swift, trying to make the reader question where he plans to go with his proposal, utilizes inappropriate, almost uncomfortable diction. Specifically, the proposal is “to provide for [the children] in such a manner as, instead of being a charge upon their parents, or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall, on the contrary, contribute to the  cloathing of many thousands” in being used as meals for others. Based on the ages of the children and the amount of food the child consumes creates the “infant’s flesh [to] be in season throughout the year, [and be] more plentiful” for a meal. Swift continuously jokes about the children making food meals or even just parts of them. If the family is having a gathering, “a child will make two dishes” and when dining alone, “the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish” to eat.

            The imagery used is so in-depth and descriptive with words making it seem humorous to the reader. In the beginning while describing “the streets, the roads, and cabin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an dims”. There are “children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers” describing how there are kids everywhere and there is too many to just carry them. Following his idea with the extra children, he described the children as “a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled” which the reader can indefinitely envision.

            The facts and evidence behind an idea is known as logos. Swift says, “there may be about two hundred thousand couples whose wives are breeders, from which [he subtracts] thirty thousand couples, who are able to maintain their own children,” showing there are many kids left uncared for. Poor parents, statistically, give birth to “a hundred and twenty thousand children” annually. Having believed the children should be over six, because they have “the quickest proficiency in the art” of making good nutritious meals.

            While Swift’s solution to the serious problem of over population is absurd and absolutely ridiculous, he does raise a valued point: something does in fact need to be done to save the population and deplete it. Having incorporated thought provoking diction, imagery, and logos to explain his proposal to change the population of Ireland. While increasing population in the streets of another country may not directly affect a person at this time, before they know it they will migrate to the United States and start taking our resources and the United States will become over populated too.

The Bill of Happiness

The Bill of Happiness

Why should the people of the world be punished because the life expectancy is increasing? When people reach a specific age, they are eligible to retire to get social security money instead of working for the money. While teenagers start working to get money to buy things, they are also buying things for the people who get social security when they retire. Little do they know, as the life expectancy increases, so does the age of which people will become eligible to retire at.  Something must be done, so the future generations can benefit from social security money and not have to retire at the age of 90. Who really wants a 90 year old to serve them lunch or dinner? I sure would not.
While people have had come up with ways to solve the problem of the social security money going along with life expectancy, none of their solutions have thus far worked. People have proposed to raise the age in which one can retire from work at and start getting social security money at. Another solution to the problem would be to decrease the amount of social security benefits given out to retired people. Which would not logically work in favor of the politicians. If the general public found out about this possible change, they would all go crazy and most likely either not vote for the politicians that support this solution, or just decide to not retire until they physically cannot work. Especially those people who have been having money taken out of their pay checks for years specifically for the social security benefits for others to have received full benefits, while they will only get a portion of it. Since 1940 when social security first appeared, the amount of people over the age of 65 in America has increased from 9 million to 34.9 million in 2000.
Having been searching for a possible job and going through the process of applications and interviews with possible employers, I have been thinking about the taxes they take out of your pay checks. The earlier you start working, the more money the state takes from you and ends up giving it to other people when they have retired before you. If they lower the amount of social security benefits one will get after they retire, all the money you worked hard for and did not get has been given to another person who decided to retire as soon as they could. How on earth is that fair?
My plausible solution for the life expectancy increasing and the amount of social security benefits decreasing is to propose the Bill of Happiness to the country. The Bill of Happiness will lower the price of alcohol and tobacco products, legalize the selling of all drugs, band gyms, and to promote all extreme sports and welcome them to everyone. Having this be passed would cause many people to die at earlier ages, and be completely happy doing it. Also making the drugs legal, could create a profit for the United States to use the money to put into the social security benefit fund, so those people who do retire will get their full benefits. It could solve both problems: the life expectancy would surely go down, while the amount of money for the social security fund increases. So the problem with it will be entirely reversed.
When you lower the price of alcohol and tobacco products, they will become more accessible and more people would use them more often, and these would most likely compromise their health and cause them to die younger to decrease the life expectancy. The extreme sports, not only will they be a lot of fun for the person do participate in, will be so dangerous that it will be doubtful that every person will survive after having participated in them. Along with this, sky diving which could be considered an extreme sport, could be used to lower the population which could lower the life expectancy by the state specifically altering 1 out of every 39 parachutes to fail when in air, so the people would in fact fall to their death. But to prevent people from no longer wanting to go sky diving after hearing that many people have died from it, each person that does in fact survive from the experience will get an incentive. They will be able to either retire five years earlier or get 3 all expenses paid cruises to all different locations in the world. These incentives can also happen for other extreme sports also. It will be exactly like playing Russian roulette, except there is a bigger chance you will actually survive participating in the extreme support.
The Bill of Happiness not only would solve the problem of the increasing life expectancy and the decrease in the amount of money left in the social security fund, but it would also make even happier people as a whole, and will decrease the amounts of cases in court due to illegal drug possession and selling, when it becomes legal. The American population would then be known for their happiness and friendly demeanors, all while enjoying their lives.

Kiss and Tell

Creating a comic effect through an awkward encounter between a teenager and her parents in public in "Kiss and Tell", Alain de Botton utilizes situational irony to convey the idea that often times parents and their children have more in common than they would like to believe.
In the beginning of the story, Isabel states that, "[her parents will] be too busy arguing where [her dad] put the car park ticket" instead of actually paying attention to her; but they do notice her and make their presence known very well to her and the rest of the audience. Isabel, seeming to know her parents very well, predicted that in fact her parents would argue about the loss of the car park ticket.When Isabel and her parents reunited so to speak after the play, her mother was not having a good day because, "[she was] lumbered with someone who [keeps] losing tickets to the car park", when in reality if her father continuously loses the tickets, the mother could just hold onto it. Isabel, believing she has nothing in common with her parents, just so happens to have attended a play that her parents were at together.

"naked lunch" thesis statement

 

Shifting from potential dominance to complete submission in "Naked Lunch", Michael Hollinger utilizes extended metaphor, detailed characterization, and sarcastic irony to convey the seriousness behind the domestic violence that can occur in relationships.