Satire: Dave Chappelle's "Black Bush"

Justin Purvis
11/17/09

When we were asked to evaluate a satire I knew exactly what kind I wanted to do. Growing up me and my friends always have watched Chappelle’s show and thought it was hilarious. So I thought for my satire evaluation I’d look at Dave Chappelle’s skit called “Black Bush”.

Even though most of the skits on the show are highly comical, stereotypical, and even sometimes strait immoral there are some that have some political connection. The skit “Black Bush” shows Dave Chappelle and other members of the cast acting as they were President Bush and other members of the president’s party. Obviously there were some scenes from the skit that were irrelevant and just made fun of black and white stereotypes there were some that made some since in contributing to the satire.

The idea that the United States main goal of the war of Iraq was for oil was brought up a lot on the satire. Dave Chappelle’s acting as president Bush showed many times (in a comical way) that it was a hush truth that the real reason behind the war with Iraq lies in its oil benefits. This is acted out in a way where “Black Bush” really wanted oil for his country but just didn’t want people to know that was the reason why we were in Iraq.

Another comical idea used in the satire was the belief that Suddam Hussein was holding onto weapons of mass destruction. This if you watch the show you will find out is derived from some very unrealistic ideas; for example Chappelle references how Suddam has purchased aluminum tubes and “yellow cake” as means for housing nuclear bombs. Again these ideas are extreme but still if you understand the satire they have some justifiable meaning.

Next is my favorite political idea of the show. The “Black Bush” satire throughout the skits takes shots at the United Nations. They heckle the United Nations for means of being more less powerless and having little back up for their mistaken authority. For example in the show there is a scene in the show where the U.N. is trying to tell President Bush to withdrawal from Iraq when Bush then strait questions their power in a highly comedic way. The idea then is the U.N. doesn’t have an army therefore why should the United States have to listen to them? Now to look at this idea in a literal sense, what pull does the United Nations have? Do they have a standing army that’s able to enforce immediate authority?

Finally at the end of the satire there is a scene of President Bush having trouble answering questions being asked at a news conference. This scene makes the president look almost dumb to the point where he knows there are things he has no answers for. Is this not true in real life? Is there some questions that politicians just shy away from? Anyway the scene goes on and changes to the subject of gay marriage. This idea comes out to be that President Bush is highly against gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Now to think about it isn’t pro-same-sex marriage a moral fiber to the Republican Party? Maybe this satire shows this in a way that just blatantly comes out and says it.

Now to be honest this skit is an extreme situation satire much unlike the one we watched in class. But again if you deeply think about it this satire makes some comical meaning and connection to the political world. While this show also shows the stereotype of what a black president would act like it still shows multiple common flaws and confusions of the ruling party up to that point…..

Extra Credit Zombieland Review

Extra Credit

Movie Review: Zombieland

Justin Purvis

I didn’t know if I was or wasn’t looking forward to viewing this film mostly because of the tons of zombie movies I feel have came out in the past couple years. But I must admit it’s probably one of the better ones I’ve seen. It was gory and chaotic just like most of your zombie movies but still managed to bring a specific feel to the table. I’m not going to say this was this year’s blockbuster, but overall wasn’t a waste of time.

First off going Woody Harrelson’s character was great especially for Harrelson to play. His character was gritty and unique and almost quirky at times but still made a great lead character of the four main characters. The main character though I felt was boring at times, and I think made the film a little more laid back then it should be. Also I’m tired of seeing movies where the lead characters are college or high school kids that are more less the “losers” of their school. I felt like recent movies like “Adventureland” or “Superbad” have worn out that trend. I guess I was wrong.

One of the things I thought made the movie better was the way the director made the scenes “jumpy”. In other words he didn’t make the movie one strait storyline. During the movie there were flashbacks and “rule scenes” that made the movie feel a bit different from your standard flick. On the other hand I hated all the basic scenes of people just running around with almost military guns and vehicles and just wiping out zombies. I feel like movies based around killing zombies have been done before and it’s time to move on.

I will admit probably tying Bill Murray into the film was probably my favorite aspect of the film. To be honest I don’t know why that is. I guess because it was unexpected, random and admit who saw that coming? Also the scene where Columbus the main character shoots Bill Murray was priceless even though I thought the dying sequence was a bit weird as far as his acting goes. Also the slow motion zombie harassment screen shots made for a nice lead to the opening of the film.

I always have liked Woody Harrelson ever since I’ve seen Kingpin but his scene at the end of this movie tops any scene from Kingpin. At first I thought he was making himself the sacrificial lamb so the main character could save the girls but I was way wrong. I guess no zombie was any match for Woody. The girl in the movie I recognized from Superbad but I don’t know if I would have picked her for this role. She’s cute but I probably would of casted a bit fiery actress for her role. That’s just me though.

So overall this movie wasn’t bad, I’m not saying it’s great either. I just saw it as being another mid level zombie movie. The cast was decent and the editing was different but not exactly unique. So if your into zombie movies they sure this movies worth a watch, if you’re not then I would save your money. I don’t know I feel like when you have trouble differentiating the movies apart; it’s time to stop making a certain subgenre of movies. So no more zombie movies! Please! If you want to see a good movie with zombie-like creatures in it then rent Bruce Campbell’s Evil Dead series. They are old school, unique, and not to mention scary as hell. I think these new day zombie movies don’t hold a candle to the old ones, but again that’s just me.

5 Songs Post

Old Crow Medicine Show- Wagon Wheel


I think everyone who listens music has a few songs they can listen to all their life as much as they can and the song never gets old. For me this is one of those songs. I first ran into this song in high school through friends and I've been listening to it ever since. Really this song reminds me of high school because whenever a group of us friends were together there was usually a guitar around and we usually ended up playing this song. All in all it was a crowd favorite at social events. Ive grown up loving southern music so this song couldn't be more perfect to fit into that genre. Wagon Wheel is twangy, southern, and easy to remember so it really always makes for a good time.

Frank Sinatra- My Way


This song is so special to me to the point where I want it played at my own funeral. I first heard this song as a kid through my grandfather who was always into classical singers from the forties and fifties such as Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, and Johnny Mathis. This song just stuck it with me even to this day, its a great powerful, legendary song. Even this day I have a giant picture of Sinatra hanging in my room at my house. The man was simply an amazing performer in means of acting and playing music.

Corey Smith- 21


Another southern song "21" by Corey Smith I can identify with because when I first played the song for my dad he said that it reminded him of his upbringing. The songs about being a highschool kid living a life thats a bit too old for your age. The name and chorus goes with the storyline by stating "wishing I was twenty-one". Its a great song to listen to live also. I've seen Corey Smith six times now and this song always gets a good response from the crowd. Its overall a good wholesome song that so many people can relate to.

Lynyrd Skynyrd- Gimme Back My Bullets


I've worked at the same horsefarm and had the same boss for about three years now and through working I have developed a pretty good relationship with my boss. He is in a Lexington local band named Ten Cent Love and tours around Lexington playing shows at places such as the Dame, Squier's Tavern, and O'Neils. Ive been to many of his shows and I must admit "Gimme Back My Bullets" is probably my favorite song they cover. Also Lynyrd Skynyrd has always been one of my favorite bands growing up.

Shinedown- 45


The first big concert I ever went to was 3 Doors Down, Tantric, and Shinedown at Rupp Arena when I was in seventh grade. We showed up late into the first bands performance (Shinedown) and only got to see one songs fully played. The song was 45 and to this day I can still remember everything about what was going on when I first heard this song. Even the smell of the arena I remember perfectly. Still today I like Shinedown and the music they are putting out but I still like their first album that they mostly played at the concert the most.

To exist or seem to exist? Red or Blue?

So everybody what’s it going to be red or blue, conformity or nonconformity, the easy road or the hard but real path? After reading different texts on this debate between taking either the red or blue pill I’ve learned that it goes much further than most notice. What does choosing the red or blue pill really mean? Does it judge the character of a person, or does it show if a person real or just living?

It wouldn’t surprise me if seventy five percent of the world’s population either chooses the blue pill or just has it shoved down their throat. Most people in today’s world almost act as machines caught in a ongoing cycle of living, doing what they think they are supposed to do in life, then dying. Like what is a person supposed to do in life? Most people would say grow up, go to college, get a good job, start a family, and die. So many people live to this standard that they are caged inside to where they are programmed to be a “model” citizen. What is a model citizen you might ask? A model citizen to me is a person that grows up in a controlled environment making every typical decision a good person should make. These people obey the law even if they might think some laws are unfair or they are being treated unfair. These people their whole lives are benefiting the economy, even though business tactics and ethics of today aren’t always moral or even looking out for the model citizen. Someone who takes the blue pill gets stuck in society afraid to branch out or discover their internal desires. These people are totally opposed to radical ideas even though some of these radical ideas might sound valid to them. It’s the fact that the idea is radical that automatically makes it automatically irrelevant to the person. These blue pill takers are blue collared, comfortable where they are, and trapped.

What about the red pill? Are these people the extremists? Are they the intellectual? Are they the people that hold their own beliefs and desires higher than the beliefs and desires of modern day society? To me these people are the people that might not live in a suburban home with a concrete schedule and always know their next move. These people are the people that live lives that are true to them and they know it’s what they want to do no matter what it is. These people go through life proposing the question how can I leave my mark on society without letting it leave its mark on me. These people are the risk takers, the ones that think outside of the box and really don’t care about others feelings on how they are living their lives. The red pill in a way is unconformity, its choosing the path that is unknown but real and unstructured. Maybe the choice of the red pill could be disastrous for some but life saving for others.

Through reading the texts I’ve learned that deciding between the blue and red pill goes much deeper than a simple judgment of character. A decision between right and wrong judges character. This decision shows whether a person want to live a real true to themselves life, or just get thrown into a systematical controlled society. So how many people look back on life after choosing the blue pill and wish they had chosen the blue one? Probably many, how many people have you heard look back on their life saying I would of done something different or I wish I had done what I love to do? Even the people that take the red pill might live a life that’s well different than normal, but all in all its their own life that they chose unaffected by the world surrounding them.

America the Undermining Society

Response to “The Conquest of Cool” By Justin Purvis

This response is going to focus on one idea from this excerpt that caught my interest. What really was the business ideology concerning the sixties, and is that ideology still present today? Its odd how the sixties played a huge role in so many areas of society. The sixties had direct effects in areas of life such as politics, popular culture, and ethics of the American mind. But the sixties pivotal role was in American business to the point where crucial trends are still undermining us today.

One of the main things I thought was interesting from the excerpt was the way it said that big commercial companies of the sixties used the “hippie era” to not only alter its way of marketing, but do this in a way to undermine this counterculture of the time. The idea of taking a mainstream product and use marketing to make it appeal to a certain sect of society is pure genius. A coke is a coke no matter what ethnicity, religion, or social culture a person is in. It’s the idea of using advertisement and marketing to exploit your product to an counter culture(that eventually became mainstream culture) and make it seem as a part to this growing culture that directly initiates success.

During the sixties commercial companies began applying peace signs and easygoing slogans to the commercial display of their product and the outcome was a complete success. That business device in my mind is still around and ever successful. Like for instance what the difference of using a peace sign to engage hippies into identifying themselves with coke, than sprite using Grant Hill during the nineties to engage a sports admiring society with Sprite. It’s the exact same tactic. A tactic that undermines a consumer mentally by making them believe that they are one with the product.

My next idea I want to evaluate in the response is pulled from both the video we watched in class as well of aspects of this excerpt. Is there such thing as a undying counterculture or sub society? Basically is it possible for a known (and growing) counterculture to stay a counterculture and not get sucked into being mainstream? For example take the “emo” explosion of the early twenty-first century to mind. At this time the world knew classic, southern, hard, alternative, even punk and heavy metal rock was basically mainstream or becoming mainstream to fans of the music industry. Then out of nowhere came these kids with tight pants, sex confused attire, and a swagger that made it seem cool to be feminine and highly symbolic. The music was basic with forms of both punk and heavy metal rock tying in. But for this sub genre it was all about the unique style of loading these musically mediocre songs with vocals and lyrics that were again highly symbolic and true to a certain type of person. In a weird way I identify the “emo” culture as being similar to the hippie movement of the sixties.

Why you might ask? Both of these cultures gave a person a sense of success and acceptance just because they dress and apart of the culture. It’s the idea that “you might not be cool or dress cool, but if you identify yourself with us, all of your “uncool” characteristics then become cool”. Like for the hippies of the sixties there was no dress code or team color, it was simply about people being a part of a people that is standing up for something engaging in a common goal. So back to my question of is there such thing as a counterculture staying a counterculture? NO! Have you ever heard of Panic of the Disco, Taking Back Sunday, or Fall Out Boy? Most people who listen to a variety of music or watch television have. All these bands started out part of the “emo” subculture and found themselves on TRL far from their starting affiliation with society.

So overall a counterculture stays a counterculture until it gets too big where mainstream society decides to engage in it and make it mainstream and beneficiary to them. It’s unfortunate but in the long run unavoidable, sorry guys.

Brainwashing: A way of American life?

Through both of these readings multiple questions now come to mind. “Why do we listen to what they say” is a great one coming from the Rushkoff reading. I feel like people today hold people with obvious media direct control to be almighty and unquestionable. It’s funny that these people giving us this information are simply passing on to the masses the altered and restructured stories that might be similar to the truth but far from the actual truth. Even if these people do give raw true information the way the story is represented in a visual sense could lead viewers to a wrong view on the subject at hand. After reading both articles it’s obvious that people are being manipulated and according to Rushkoff this trend is an undying one.

For instance an example from my life I can connect to is ESPN’s take on professional sporting teams. The facts could be on the table that a team isn’t going to fair well against their upcoming opponent maybe due to games in the past or current injuries of the team. What amazes me is that if ESPN gives a glorified analyst or sports legend ten minutes of airtime to share a exotic idea on how this team will magically do better in their next game because of this persons inside information then it’s likely that people that whole week will be talking about this team as if it’s obvious that they will emerge victorious. This motion is not because of the person watching ESPN really feels inside that the team will win but the idea that an educated sports analyst told him so. Its radical, its unavoidable and overall its brainwashing.

Now connecting Rushkoff to the online article, what connection do Liberal Arts really have to people’s ability to ask why they perceive the world in the way they do instead of how they will perceive the world? Maybe if Liberal Arts were injected more to the curriculum than America would give birth to more liberal independent thinkers. These people might be able to refuse the almighty public authority (mostly distributed to the public by ways of television and radio).

Also secondly is it not a bit scary to you that government is trying to of all things limit the amount of liberal arts classes available in the school system? What are they trying to do exactly? Are they trying to dumb down America’s people to being susceptible to their economical plans of controlling the mind to do their economical bidding? Are they trying to fill up young peoples’ minds with black and white knowledge of facts and ways of evaluating to induce the public to act in one simple manner? While this view might be exotic it’s debatable and almost scary.

While we view business officials and politicians to be role models of American society is that anywhere close to the truth? What are they really doing within their job responsibilities? To me it seems they are putting out information that is fake or spun. They put out stories and media that will engage the viewer by portraying a certain mood or false conclusion of successfulness and not even come close to the true characteristics of the subject at hand. These people are manipulators working in a manner not because they feel it is right, but because they know it will work. For example gum companies even though all gum is similar use ads and commercials to sell a product conveying mood or energy far from the true characteristics of the product.

Overall a piece of gum is a piece of gum. No gum or body was will give a man multiple female admirers or a brand new Mercedes no matter what media displays. The whole gig is tricking the American mind, even though how unfair it might be.

Tarantino: Ingenious Bastard

A review of Inglorious Bastards by Justin Purvis

Watching the previews for Bastards I was anxious and totally ready to view Quentin Tarantino’s next work of art. Considering I’m not a huge Brad Pitt fan (and was caught a little off guard when he landed this lead role) I still had huge expectations for Tarantino’s latest blockbuster. Everyone I had talked to before viewing the film said it was intense and worth the wait. Afterward I was pleased but still had a lot of quirky thoughts on the film.
At the first scene I was ready for something heavy and loud but I got the exact opposite. Even though I like the ending of the first scene I still thought it was slow. The dialogue was quiet at times and I could see where some people could get bored with the introductory scene. Then obviously all hell breaks loose and I was reassured I was watching a Tarantino film.
The story I thought was good because it was unique. I enjoyed the weird spin on WW2 different perspectives mastered in this film by the director. I guarantee if you will not see any other WW2 movies similar to this one. Bastards was serious but not serious, laid back then intense, totally formal then extremely sarcastic, again personally I know I enjoyed the film but afterward don’t know what to make of it.
My favorite characteristic of the film was the evident, key, jaw dropping scenes. Also you knew when these hit scenes were going on because the theatre filled with these loud theatrical sounds that only Tarantino would think to put in his movie. I really think that’s the loudest I’ve ever heard it get in a theatre, maybe I was just caught up in the moment. Overall by far the best scene was the ending scene where the place goes up in flames, pure genius, pure madness, pure Tarantino.
The structure of this film in a lot of ways reminded me off Resevoir Dogs. The unique style of having chapters and voice overs during the film almost resemble the way he introduced the “Mr.’s” in Resevoir Dogs. The notion was odd and irregular to your mainstream movie viewer but to those like me who appreciate the out of the box tactics made for a great film.
Now thinking of the intent of the film I find myself almost puzzled. What was the director trying to get across in this film? I didn’t really think this movie was a “serious” historical film like say Pearl Harbor or Schindler’s List, but it had some factual parts, right….. Maybe the director was trying to give a quirky representation of WW2 through this film.
Basically this movie can be enjoyed by just about anybody, especially those who enjoy those not so everyday movies. Bastards has encouraged me to go back and watch some of Quentin Tarantino’s older stuff just because I enjoyed this film so much. To tell you the truth I intend on seeing this film again because I enjoyed it so much the first time. Also I see how you might have to watch this film two or three times to get its full impact.
Even after watching this film I now don’t mind Brad Pitt as much as I did before. I think he did one hell of a job in the film staying true to his characters role of a hardnosed southern gentleman from Tennessee. His accent and all round swagger was perfect. I can’t say when I picture the character In the film the first movie star to come to mind would be Brad Pitt but all in all he pulled it off and made for a great character.