Here's the clip:
We Are The 1%
This week our group has chosen to analyze a video from collegehumor.com. The clip deals with the "1% minority", which in this case are the very wealthy people of society. The video was published on October 24, 2011. Do you think this relates to the content of the video? Pay attention to the signs the protesters are carrying, and they're comments. What kind of emotions does this video try to evoke in viewers as they watch it? Is the video successful at instilling these emotions? What kind of comment do you think the creators of this video are trying to make about our country's wealth?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
The video is clearly a parody of The occupy Wall Street movement, with the satire being directed towards the 1% that the movement has opposed itself to. The video creates humor by showing how ridiculous it would be for the 1% to have their own movement, and how they are acting as though they have been victimized. It really seems like the video plays a lot off of emotions. The creators may be attempting to make the viewers feel anger in addition to humor. It seems like there is a bit of a sting to the comedy in the video that is meant to make one think, "How do these people have the audacity to act the way they do." They way the 1% was portrayed was pretty stereotypical of how rich people act, but I think the video was created more so for the purpose of poking fun rather than making more serious statements, so it really shouldn't be taken too seriously. Although the video didn't change my perception, I would say it was probably pretty effective considering the crowd it is trying to reach. The video may also be kind of funny in another sense, when you consider how many people in the 1% support the occupy wall street movement. People like Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin. They're all ridiculously rich multi-multi-millionaires and probably have much more in common with the people in the video than the protesters.
I agree with Phil that the video was made in response to the current Occupy Wall Street movement. The target of the video is the wealthy Americans that are also the target of the protests. The clip depicts rich people as being extremely selfish. These individuals are not even willing to make minor sacrifices themselves in order to improve the lives of others. Exaggeration is commonly used in this clip. One example is when the man at the begging of the video uses money to light his cigar. Not too many people are going to burn money no matter how much of it they may have. Another example is when the rich protestors in the video are demanding the rest of the nation’s money despite already owning 43% of it. The frequent use of exaggeration, and in some cases irony, gives the video a humorous aspect. I believe that this was the intention of the video’s producers. Humor is usually a common method used to attract an audience’s attention and is a great means of entertaining as well as exposing vices in a society. Ultimately, the creators of this video are making fun of wealthy people who are only concerned about the own wellbeing and who complain that they deserve more money despite already having more money than they truly need. I believe the video is very effective as the majority of its viewers are likely not millionaires, but rather the average working American. This audience probably shares a similar opinion of rich people as the creators of the video, therefore making the creator's claims more humorous and easier to understand.
As stated by previous comments the video was clearly made to allude to the Occupy Wall Street movement. The humorous aspect of the clip somewhat draws away form other emotions that could be created from a clip like this. The exaggerations were prevalent as pointed out by Cale but I disagree that they were very effective. The exaggerations do a good job at pointing out the separation between the 1% and the average viewer. I think that the creators are trying to comment on the inequality of wealth in American society. The creators don't necessarily offer any solutions to the problem but they are trying to draw attention to the issue. I think that a little less exaggeration would have allowed the video to evoke more emotion as the viewer would have taken it more seriously.
This clip seems very interesting because it presents what it wants to say both directly and with some parodies. There are many millionaires who say that I reserve to get special benefits and that it is not reasonable to pay more tax, mentions that directly represent the main topic of the clip. Also, the clip ironically presents its meanings, showing some ludicrous situations such as the “billionaire” on the two men’s shoulder and the man who is igniting his cigarette through burning bills. These materials are helping viewers not only catch the point of the clip but also pay attention to the clip. In addition, I hope to ask peers about parodies in this clip. I found the woman tied her blond hair back and wearing a blue blouse and a black jacket. This woman is parodying the main character of “Fringe”, an investigating TV show of Fox. The woman in the show is a cool-head FBI-agent who has a great investigating sense. By parodying a famous character of a TV show, the clip seems to satirize the “1%” people and gives the viewer an interest.
I hope to ask peers that there are any other parodies which I couldn’t catch.
This video is a satire of the occupy wall street movement. This video is trying to paint the 1% as stuck up and not in touch with the other members of society. This video tries to sway the viewers emotions towards the not 1% group and does a good job. However, I would have to disagree with video and how it portrays the 1%. It makes generalizations that every rich person is the same and doesnt care about the regular community. In fact, many rich people are extremely nice and in touch with society. They are generous and give much of their money away. I also hate when people who think that just because someone is rich, they should be forced to pay more. It is not their fault they are successful and happen to be worth more money. If you put in the hard work and have to drive to be a success, you should not be punished for it. We are all given equal chances to succeed, especially with the way that everybody has to opportunity to go to a public school and go to college. Also, there is a wealth of scholarships out there for people who do not have a lot of money. Maybe if people who are the 99% stopped protesting in the streets and actually tried to find jobs, work hard, graduate, and try to climb the corporate ladder, they would not be out protesting. I feel like a lot the 99% are people who slacked off during high school, then went to a sub par college because of it and slacked off even more and partied instead of going to class and achieving at a high level. Now, they realize that the major they were in was a joke and they are no jobs out there because crap GPA. Because of that, they have student loan debt that they could have been paid off if they had gotten good jobs. They are just looking for somebody to blame for their problems instead of taking responsibility for their own situation. i actually sympathize with the 1% with the way they are being targeted for being successful and profitable. Its not their fault that the 99% didnt take advantage of their opportunities. There is something called the american dream, but in order to achieve it, you have to work hard, nothing is going to come easy.
I agree with the previous commenters’ opinion that the video was made to point out occupy Wall Street movement and the 1% American wealthy people are the target. The video uses exaggerate to make a clear line between the 1% and the rest people, Like the rich people in riding on two man, and the wealthy woman use rudies to make the sign. However, I don’t think this video is satirizing those 1% people. I think the video just want to catch people’s attention to the Wall Street movement and pay more attention to the inequity between the rich people and the poor.
After watching the video again, I found some details very interesting. This video took place at a place looks very ropey. I think I found the place is ropey is because those wealthy people standing there and under the contrast the the house, the road seems more ropey. It is strange because those wealthy people usually do not go to the place where is very ropey. I think the video use this contrast to make a clear line between the wealthy people and the poor people. and to catch people’s attention to the inequity between the wealthy people and the poor people
This video was very interesting on how it portrayed the 1%. Throughout the video it gave many good points about wealthy people and how some may or may not act. I think that the video did a good job of showing some difference between wealthy people and "the average Joe". The audience for this video seems to be more directed the the "non-wealthy" people because the wealthy people probably do not find this video very humorous. The creators of this video definitely do a good job of showing the inequality people to wealthy and poor.
One of the parts of the video that really struck me is when one of the worsen protesting asked, "Why should I be punished for being successful and for being wealthy?" It seems like this question is brought up a lot when the topic of taxes is being discussed. Should people be taxed more just because they have more money or should they be taxed just as much as someone who is making minimum wage and who has a family? I guess the answer the answer to this question would kind of relate to what your political views are, but I'm curious to see what people's response to this question would be.
Another item to consider when viewing the video is the fact that rich people like Bill Gates who are publicly suggesting that they need to be taxed more. One would find that this contrasts with the blogs current view on the video. When considering this fact, an alternative idea can be seen. This commercial might not be directed at the wealthy or not so rich individuals but rather at politicians who are not implementing increased rich taxation. Is the video really directing it at one of these three groups or is it another group who is yet to be mentioned? Can the video be directing it all three groups?
The posters and chants these people use in their movement are trying to evoke sympathy for being a minority in this country. They feel they are being persecuted for being wealthy and having benefits. The film ironically takes place in a broken down and dilapidated area to emphasize further their wealth and nice appearance. One woman complains that they're rights are being taken away, such as bribing police men. Another shot shows these individuals burning money and burning cigars. This burning may suggest that they own so much that to lose just a little wouldn't hurt them, but they'd rather be rich just the same. This video aims to make fun of the 1% who hold the wealth in our nation.
The prime focus of this video is based upon the recent Occupy Wall Street movement and the wealthy individuals of the United States. The millionaire tax that has been proposed has created major controversy. I believe this video portrayed maybe how some extremely wealthy people feel about being taxed more because of their successes although, College Humor definitely exaggerated the responses of the 1%. The sketch portrayed all the wealthy people to be narcissistic, one example that I found humorous was the women who exclaimed that she, alone, was worth 262 of "her" referring to a women carrying her groceries into her apartment. This sketch exaggerated the 1% views to only be focused on themselves which evoked the feeling of irritability by their supposed ignorance. One man even said "Why should I even have to pay a millionaire's tax, I'm a billionaire". All of these claims suggest the millionaires of the U.S.A are arrogant and selfish, some may agree some may not.
I think this video does a fantastic job of satirizing the Occupy Wall Street movement. There is a lot of focus by the OWS people on the concept of the "99%" so this commercial is very appropriate. Throughout the commercial you see a lot of cigar smoking, suits, and tea drinking; supposedly axioms of wealth. They sort of mock the conservative policy on taxes, with ideas of flat taxes and other slightly progressive taxes rather than our current tax rates. Something I think that was a great edition, yet easy to overlook, was at around 20 seconds the guy started lighting his friend's cigar with a huge wad of cash, used to symbolize the waste and overall lack of care in the 1%. Overall I think the goal of satirizing OWS was accomplished.
This is a very interesting clip ironing the Occupy Wall Street movement. Some patterns in this commercial such as one person burning cash to light up a cigarette and sitting on two men's shoulders are really ironic. They are "1%" that are totally separated from other "99%". So I think they are satirizing those people by setting some specific plots. Also, tax policy is dominant factor in this clip.
The target audience of this clip I believe is the rest of the 99%. It is meant to give people a laugh to the current events happening on Wall Street. The target of the video is the 1%, or wealthy citizens. Rich people are known for being selfish and arrogant and this video depicts this. Some examples of this is saying how they had to fire their butler's butler's butler's and how one of the women made their sign out of rubies.
This video may be taking the opinions of how the 99% see the 1% and putting it into action. Perhaps the creators are making fun of the general public's conception of how the nation views the wealthy 1% and are exaggerating how these people act. Very few people are actually this ignorant to burn money and force other people to carry them around the streets of a large city shirtless as shown in this video. Nevertheless, the people of the 99% see the small wealthy percentage as such villains that do this. It seems that the creators may want to bring this humorous concept to life in this satirical clip.
i think this video is a satire video which targets the 1% of the rich people in the wall street. the facilitator ask us to take a look at the signs the people are holding. it is very interesting that there is a person who hold a board which said that her son deserve the space flight for recreation.also, there is a person who hold the board which the words on the board are made by rubies. this is interesting because they are showing that there is nothing wrong for being rich. and at the end of the video, the person said that if it is wrong to be rich, they don't want to be rich because they are target by the majority of the people who are not rich. we are not jealous or feel angry about them,and there is nothing wrong for being rich in my opinion. it is that they don't need to show off how they are being rich and that is what makes people feel angry about.
I think that most of the comments have been pretty consistent with the satirical aspects of the video clip. Ryan brings up an interesting aspect of the video, about how the video doesn't portray the 1% from the most desirable viewpoint. So something to think about, is the 1% is portrayed fairly throughout the clip?
in the video, the 1% minority of people are so arrogant and feel fortunate of being rich. but think back of the video is a satire video, there is also some part that exaggerate the fact and the real problem. so, i think that we have to think care about the video.
In my honest opinion I agree with the millionaire tax. With all of the nation's problems and our growing debt, these people should be taxed more to help solve some of our problems. Being a millionaire in this country still means you are a citizen and we all our faced with the same issues our country has. From this clip one women exclaimed she was surprised the laws of the U.S still applied to the 1%... this arrogant comment exaggerates how the 1% percieves themselves but still brings up the question as to whether they really feel above the average american, do they truly feel superior because of their wealthy lifestyle?
I feel that this video is targeted towards those who are wealthy and may feel as if they are better than everyone else; at least that seems to be what the video is portraying. However, I also think that the video is used to humor those who may not be considered wealthy and show those viewers how the wealthy is portrayed. If a wealthy person were to view this video I do not think that he/she would be very amused with what is being said about them. The creators may have been trying to inform the wealthy how some people may be view them.
I think that the setting in this video is very interesting. I liked that although it targets rich people, it is not set in a rich or high class neighborhood. It is very funny that the 99% of people are attacking such a small percentage of people that are rich. It's sad that at the end of this video someone says, that if it is wrong to be rich, they don't want to be rich. it isn't wrong to be rich, and rich people should not be seen as wrong. Let them live their lives the way they want to. Just because people that aren't rich perceive rich people as these wasteful cruel people, doesn't mean they are.
When reading the comments i've found a big trend. A lot of you are claiming this video isn't effective because there are rich people who care about the poorer people. While yes there are caring rich individuals, this movement isn't against opera or bill gates. This movement is primarily against the CEO's of big businesses who are fraudulently making huge bucks off of us. This is against people who use and abuse the current economic system.
I still believe the target of this video is the wealthy 1%. Through biased and exaggerated depictions of the rich, the creators of the video portray the wealthy as selfish and overconfident individuals. The target audience is most likely the 99% of working Americans who are not billionaires. The arrogant representation of the wealthy makes the individuals who are protesting against billionaires on Wall Street appear to be protesting for a just cause.
It seems to me like the video is just meant to be a video for people to enjoy for its humor, particularly people who might sympathize with the occupy wall street movement. I don't think the creators of the video thought they were really going to change anything. It's not like the 1% they are talking about will just say "okay college humor, since you make such an incredibly sound argument, we're going to give all our money away, and everything will change from now on." Because if the makers of the video really did mean to say that is how wealthy people act that would be a very childish, sweeping generalization. And since when has anyone from the 1% said any of these things that are in the video, who is even considered to be in the 1% or will even identify themselves as the 1%. So regardless of what your stance is on this whole issue, I really just think it is meant to be an entertaining video, with maybe a hint of satire. And honestly I didn't think the humor was very clever, and it really wasn't funny to me, but it's not to be taken seriously.
@Katherine
I like the idea you brought up about the wealthy feeling as if they are being punished. I don't think that this will necessarily be a political issue. I think that there are many contributing factors that go into this but I disagree with the notion that they are being punished. I think that it is fair that they be taxed more than the average person when it won't financially hurt them or be very noticeable. This is somewhat brought up in the clip by the billionaires who are far beyond the millionaires. I don't think that the tax needs to be an enormous number but it should be larger than someone who is making considerably less.
This video clearly takes the 1% and makes them seem as though they are bad for being rich. However, if we look at people's views from today about the 1%, some of them think this is how the 1% actually behave. Could this video be an accurate portrayal? Or are the creators of this video trying to hint at something else; Perhaps basing this video on the jealously and the anger that the average person feels towards the 1%? Or does the average person simply not care enough to be jealous or angry?
The clip seems to address more than one audience. The audience can be those who are not rich (the 99%). The video takes place in the "not so rich part of town". Possibly indicating that the main focus is in and around those who are not wealthy. I've noticed the buildings look run down and a lady walks buy with a grocery bag. She was dressed in what seems to be a middle classed outfit. The rich people could be targeting the other 99% but also the not so wealthy people could be targeting the rich and fancy classes. the rich and famous class looks like a bunch of fools in the video. from lighting money ion fire, acting and talking in a snobby manner, and protesting in a part of a city where you wouldn't necessarily see the upper class.
@Zach
To further the question of who is the target of the video clip, the same question can be asked for the target audience. One might assume the target audience would be an average consumer, but someone else might say that it relates to politicians or the wealthy. Who really is the target audience? Maybe there isn't a group for a target audience, but maybe a message to be heard by all?
This clip is mocking the Occupy Wall Street movement. Exaggeration is a main method to present the satire. The “1%” people use exaggerated face emotions, phrases to present their strong feeling of “why do they need to pay the tax?” I agree with Brandon that the purpose of this clip is trying to point out the gap between the wealth people and the poor people. The wealthy people are targeted. There is one scene in the video touch me deeply. A wealthy woman in a fashion looking points to another poor woman in an old jacket who just bought a lot staff for the family. The wealthy woman said she worth a much lot than the poor woman. Are there really so many different between a rich and poor people? I think the makers of the video are depicting the inequality between those people in an really effective way.
I this the targer of this clip is to satire rich people that are saperate with others in this society. The one thing it mentions is that weathy people are rich in every generation. However, they claims that they should be regarded specially by not paying so much tax because that their high income resulting in high tax expense. Actually, they are the minority who have more money than other people in the society even though they pay more tax. So this clip kind of mocks those people in the Occupy Wall Street.
After watching the video, some details catch my attention. For example, we can see some poor people who don’t wear coat and they put some rich people on their shoulder to make those rich people higher. One guy lights the cigarette using some money for the rich man. In addition, this video was taken in a poor, dirty neighborhood, which is not the usual place that the rich will go to and this can be regarded as anomalies. So we can consider: why was the clip designed like this, why did they use some lower-class people inside together with the rich, and what’s the function of the contrast and anomalies used in the clip?
I agree with Alisha in saying that it is pretty unfair the way that the "1%" is portrayed as evil and super wasteful. I think that part of the reason they go over the top mocking the 1% in this video is because they are poking fun at the actual Occupy Wall Street story, their second target. The way that the OWS movement attacks all rich people is an unfair generalization and I think that this video makes fun of that.
In this video I saw people protesting against the rich 1% population occupying 43% of the United States’ wealth by acting their ridiculous behaviors and mind. The high school girl shows the audience how “Wall street people” evaluate themselves, claiming that one of her is worth 262 “normal” women. The man acting a billionaire claims that he has made enough sacrifice, yelling that his butler’s butler had to fire his butler’s butler, riding on two naked men who represent those poor. At the very end of this video clip there is a website which doesn’t actually exist instead of a calling. In my opinion such form usually appears in commercial advertising and feels more formal than a calling. In this way the video maker might show his serious wish for public to understand their “devastating situation”.
I agree with the above posters that think that the way the 1% is portrayed in unfair. Like in my first comment, i attacked the 99% for the way the made it seem like they were getting punished. I believe the target audience of this clip was the rich people who refuse to share their wealth with the others
Post a Comment