Recommend me a good satire (explanation below)

If you haven't seen The Loved One (1965), it's a classic satire with plenty of humor. Based upon the book by Evelyn Waugh, it stars Robert Morse, Jonathan Winters, Rod Steiger, Anjanette Comer, John Gielgud; and with cameos by several big stars of the day. It satirizes the funeral industry-- both human and pet.

This is a long one, but I find it very difficult to say anything half coherent on this topic in short bursts. Sorry about that

Laughing out loud is certainly not a requirement for something to be funny. In satire nor in other genres. I generally prefer stuff that makes me think, but have tremendous respect for things that actually makes me laugh because it happens so rarely and because I'm fascinated by the ability to effectively manifest primal responses or sensetions through art in general. (Laughter, hypnosis, unease, ecctasy etc.)

I agree with your critique of Idiocracy, but let me adjust my initial definition a hair: Because there are different kinds of satire I wouldn't say ridiculing people in power and their flunkies is a required element in satire as much as ridiculing ignorance in general, which just happens to be an inherent element of power and its followers. So a better one would be ridiculing ignorant or deluded people into behaving as if they were functional adults while giving the less ignorant a healthy laugh.

I believe a genuine urge for social change has to lie behind any «true» satire for it to work. Some might think that's a militant take on things but it's how I honestly see it. To the degree you share that viewpoint there's something to be said about satire that actually manages to make people laugh, or at least is funny, as it helps spread change/hope/empowerment through broader walks of life. Everyone likes to laugh and will typically have some interest in checking out whatever is broadly known to make that happen.

This is to me where satire differs from most other works of art as the work is judged by its goals and ambitions outside of, more than just in and of itself. Labeling C&C as satire might be a stretch, but the raw comedy certainly helps with bringing a generally satirical viewpoint, however vague, to the masses, thus succeeding with a satire «agenda» arguably as well as what more on point satire with smaller audiences typically does. I guess this is why I'm usually disappointed with most "real" satire, as it's rarely funny to me, thus looses the bite I feel is needed for it to come across as having an impact and making a difference. I want to feel like what I'm watching somehow matters. A huge part of what makes Brüno funny to me is knowing practically the whole world has been or is going to be exposed to it.

The guys behind Southpark strike me as pretty easy going, laid back, dudes with a great sense of humour, not particularly bothered by politics and "serious" topics. Nevertheless I think their work has great impact and truly makes the world a better place. I also think they are aware of it and that it's an intended effect of what they're aiming for and want to do.

You could say that unlike other kinds of activism, satire actually has a sense of humour, and that's not something to be laughed at

Network (it's considered a satire, I didn't find it that funny)
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
American Psycho

That sounds good in theory but you can't expect that type of self-awareness post-2014

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The film is very explicit about what it means to use a phrase like "Dear White People". The film explores the experiences of different black students, including the way that they are policed in their behavior by other black students. There's a deep focus on the multiple, often conflicting messages that the students receive, especially being a minority subgroup in a mostly-white environment. Some of the students lean heavily on their membership in that subgroup, while others want nothing to do with it ("it's where the hopelessly Afrocentric gather to process their guilt over not going to an HBCU.").

The film is both satirizing elements of college protest culture (the lead character writes a dubious, unsolicited 15 page essay about Gremlins being an allegory for white fear of black people) and of institutions that pat themselves on the back for being "past racism" when there are blatant examples of it out in the open.

I don't think that it's a perfect film by any means, but it has several laugh out loud moments, takes time to develop multiple characters, and makes an interesting point that the desires, ambitions, motivations of Black people (or any subgroup) are not uniform.

Maybe the title makes you think that the film is just going to be a lecture, but it isn't.

Heathers
Josie & The Pussycats
But I'm A Cheerleader

What I mean is I (normally) can't expect a post-2014 left-wing movie or show to be self-aware enough to make fun of protest culture. The way you describe it, it sounds really good, but you understand why I'd be skeptical about it. HBO's watchmen or the Twilight Zone reboot, for example, would never be as even-handed with its social commentary

demolition man is a satire

Well, all I can encourage you to do is go in with an open mind. If you have the mentality that it's just going to be a lecture, those are probably the only parts you'll pick up on (because the film does critique racism in academia).

It's why I also recommended Four Lions. The film is satirizing a group of men who decide to join a jihad. It makes some really good points about what actually draws many men into such movements (HINT: it's not really about religion but rather status and power). But the film also has several moments that make powerful statements about racism and how racist actions can actually radicalize people OR victimize people who have nothing to do with terrorism. Also, I thought it was hilarious. There is a scene in a training camp that has some excellent physical comedy.

Satirising ignorant people or ignorance as a concept isn't that easy, though - I'd argue that Idiocracy fails in this regard because of how it attempts to criticise ignorance. The big problem is in how the film's prologue explains that the reason people in the future are so stupid is that the stupid people simply out-bred the smart people over centuries (demonstrating this by comparing a smart man who keeps putting off having children and ultimately dies childless against a stupid man who has a dozen children by multiple different women in a short amount of time), which ends up sounding an awful lot like eugenicist rhetoric about superior and inferior genes (and arguably lets "stupid" people off the hook by blaming irreversible birth defects instead of wasting one's perfectly fine mental capacity). There's also the question of how effective it is to ridicule people into thinking better because doing it wrong (or maybe even doing it at all) runs the risk of making them double down on their existing thoughts and views, which means that the satire in question is effectively preaching to the choir.

I'll leave this video here since it goes into detail about the problems with the satire in Idiocracy. OP might be interested in it as well (and I second its recommendation of Sorry to Bother You, which is definitely a superior -albeit not perfect - exercise in satirising the inanity of late-capitalist America and the culture it spawned.



I've only seen one Cheech & Chong movie (Up in Smoke) and I didn't exactly think of it as a satirical piece beyond the expected mockery of anti-drug authority figures like cops or judges. Likewise, Bruno is an inferior satire next to Borat because it lacks the same focus on who it's satirising and why, often coming across as a pretty basic prank show instead.

On the other hand, I've seen plenty of criticism aimed at South Park precisely because of how unbothered their approach to political humour can be. Taking the stance that every side of a particular issue can be criticised or mocked in equal measure is a questionable move and does not automatically apply to every issue they attempt to address through the show, which is part of why I gave up on it years ago.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Yes it's a question of tactics. I say let them double down until they look as deranged and ridiculous as they are willing to. Not saying it's not dangerous. What happened with the people working for Charlie Hebdo was terrible, but we learned much that we should never forget about radical islam.

I totally get that. Up in Smoke is dumb, it's not satire and complete garbage compared to the rest of their movies. Unfortunately it's the one C&C movie most people have seen. If that was the case for me I wouldn't be a fan either.

There's some dumbness in Nice Dreams as well, but it's worth it, especially for the nuthouse part. (Don't cheat by watching it on youtube. All the clips from the nuthouse is too short and cut out of context and you'll miss out) I recommend watching Nice Dreams first as the other two I'll recommend will make more sense that way.

Things are Tough All Over is awesome. Not dumb. Watch as nr 2

Next Movie as nr 3. Arguably their best.

Both these are highly creative, top of the line comedies with satiric undertones. You have missed out big time on these and have something to look forward to, even if you're not thrilled by Nice Dreams. If you don't like these last two then there's something seriously wrong with you. I wouldn't say it's a requirement, but smoking a doobie certainly wouldn't hurt, as the movies sort of ride on that mindstate as much as if not more than psychedelic music does.

I completely agree with that, I just don't think it applies all that much to South Park. They are a little shy on the big issues, but I don't think they are too even handed. I think the last 3-4 seasons have been very hit and miss.

No offence to you, but I think the maker of that critique clip need to pull the giant stick out of his butt. He is taking Idiocracy way too serious for what it is and could just as well have dumped on American Pie for being a bad documentary about high school life. It was obviously never aiming for the level he is attacking it for not reaching. To me Idiocracy was a mildly funny sci-fi comedy with satire elements like Back to the Future 2 or like how Fifth Element is an ok sci-fi action with satire elements. In fact it would make much more sense to critique those last two mentioned with that level of expectation IMO.

I haven't seen Sorry to Bother You. I'll put it on my shortlist.

I think The Onion Movie nails this criteria pretty well

__________________
|>
|
Ami-Scythe

The maker of that video is a trans woman so she/her pronouns are in order.

Anyway, I question how much you can really differentiate between satires and comedies with satire elements - seems like you'd still have to assess the latter's satirical merits anyway, especially if they are so intertwined with the comedic side that the comedy is ruined because the satire is so flawed. Idiocracy has all the trappings of a satire anyway - its whole setting of a future society where stupidity takes over is essentially a cautionary tale against allowing it to proliferate in the present (especially considering that it was made during George W. Bush's second term and evokes not just frustration with his incompetent leadership but the people who continued to support him anyway). Its main plot is inherently political as it revolves around the U.S. president charging the protagonist with solving the country's problems, which basically amounts to him realising that they water their crops with energy drinks (and his common-sense solution of using water on the crops gets him sentenced to death because it ruins the energy drink company's stock value and puts people out of work). It's one thing if you want to think of Idiocracy as a comedy first, but I don't think you can play down the importance of its satire just because someone actually went to the trouble of breaking down why it not only doesn't work on its own but adversely affects the comedy.

Maybe. I get the plot, and I'm not saying Idiocracy is not a satire. I just personally think it works better for a cheap laugh at the absurdness than as a satire, and I don't really buy the idea that it was meant to be taken all that serious anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't exactly get the impression that they were aiming for the stars with it to put it that way. I'm not sure we are disagreeing all that much here.

Duck Soup (1933)
Doctor Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb (1964)

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! (1978)
and

Brazil (1985)