Margaret Cho

It is interesting to examine the difference between Margaret Cho's early stand-up routines such as the one we saw in class and her more recent acts. There has definitely been a persona change for starters. In her early stand-up, she wore typical feminine clothing while now she sports more exotic garments with the addition of tattoos on her bodies. Furthermore, the content and nature of her routine as evolved drastically. Whereas she used to speak about the circumstances of being Korean in America with a little bit of emphasis on her dating life, now her act is overly explicit in regards to topics such as sexuality and politics. 

I wonder why she changed her image in such a way. It seems to me that she probably has a more universal appeal to the mass public with her original stand-up routine seeing as some people might be offended by the content now. In addition, the topics of sexuality can be very specific to certain demographics while many others are excluded. However, as long as she is not worried about appealing to the greatest amount of people, the image change is probably a good choice. First, it makes her an identifiable face. Instead of getting painted in with all the other comics which talk about race and relationships, she is now known because of the brutal honesty of her routine. So, in that sense, she is able to reach greater fame even if she doesn't have as wide of an appeal. Yet, by broadcasting her outspoken views in her comedy act, the sympathizers of cause are able to have a comedienne to call their own. Something like that would result in a larger audience perhaps than if she stuck with her original act. Whether or not such comedians are well-received by the public aside, people remember the ones that stand out (Andrew Dice Clay, Sam Kinneson) because they were so in-your-face and in some cases obnoxious that they are difficult to forget and easy to recognize. 

No place for satire?

After watching Idiocracy, I did some research as to the production and marketing of the film. Since it was made by Mike Judge, creator of Beavis and Butthead and Office Space, I was surprised that it had not received stronger marketing. I had seen the film on the shelves of Blockbuster but that is about it. I don't remember seeing any commercials or ads for the film and I don't even think it played in a theater near me.
It turns out that the film did not, in fact, receive any sort of marketing campaign. It was released in a few theaters in a handful of cities and that is it. There were no posters or commercials for most of the general public. In fact, the movie only grossed about half a million dollars which is less than most independent films. This seemed odd considering a notable cast and writer/director. Perhaps the reason the film got swept under the rug is because the studios do not appreciate such strong satire.
I can certainly understand why the studios, namely 20th Century Fox, wouldn't enjoy a movie which completely bashes consumerism, advertisements and corporations. But I never thought they would purposely squash a film's potential in order to keep the message from getting out. Are film studios really that afraid of humor that they will accept a profit loss in order to manage it.
Mike Judge isn't completely innocent though. He does suggest that the only news channel which plays in the future is Fox News, one of the only conservative news sources. So in that sense, he is biting the hand that feeds him. But it just doesn't settle well with me that a studio would try to completely eradicate a work of satire like Idiocracy. The movie, which wasn't even screen for critics, received mostly positive reviews from the critics which did report on it. Therefore a studio would rather produce mindless junk than a pretty critically acclaimed film which shows them in a bad light. That's a sad state of affairs.
Nevertheless, Idiocracy is a valuable tool for studying satire at the high school and college level so hopefully teachers will continue to show the movie because it is enjoyable and also educational.