Sept. 23, 2005
featured
guilford 1 a n. r.nm
Page 13
Greensboro. N.C.
One dirty, dirty joke, for two hours.
j^arren Parkt^r
Staff Writer
Usually, hearing the same
H ® °ver-and-over again ren
ders it stale, annoying, and,
above all, unfunny. In The
^ristocrats, a documentary
directed by Paul Provenza and
produced by Penn Jillette of the
comic duo Penn and Teller, the
same joke is retold ad nause-
9m, and ifs hilarious. But The
^stocrats is not Just about an
99e-old joke, it also looks at
ow obscene a comedian can
get.
The joke begins like this: A
'amily walks into a talent
sgency and explains an act
6y have prepared for the
genfs show. From there, the
i, ® off, with each of the
m s featured comedians
^prevising about some of the
unchiest things that any per
son could think up.
When the joke is finished, the
agent asks the family, "What do
call yourselves?" They
respond, 'The Aristocrats!"
ihe Aristocrats, which fea-
es no nudity or violence and
so obscene that the-
rs have been carding any-
Answer Key
_gNTINUED FROM PAGE 11
one who tries to buy a ticket.
I know what you're thinking;
"Surely it can't be that revolt
ing!" Yes. Yes it can. The come
dians dig deep into their reper
toires to make this joke as
grotesque as they can with
jokes about scatology,
necrophilia, bestiality, and
incest.
Eventually, I realized that it's
about the belly of the joke, not
the punch-line. It isn't what the
comedians are saying is funny,
it is the fact that they are saying
it at all.
I'd normally quote something
here, but I'm afraid that the risk
of offending someone is too
high. In fact, the joke is so crass
and offensive, that it never
leaves the back stage area,
aside from • Gilbert Gottfried s
legendary telling at Hugh
Hefner’s roast, just weeks after
the 9/11 tragedy.
Gottfried is just one member
of the large ensemble boasted
by The Aristocrats. Joining him
are Steven Wright, George
Carlin, Whoopie Goldberg,
Penn and Teller, Jeffery Ross,
Sarah Silverman, Phyllis Oilier,
Howie Mandel, Jon Stewart,
T a)3
2- a)2
3- a)i
4- a)3
5- a)2
a)i
T- a)3
8. a)2
9- a)i
■lO- a)3
11. a)2
^2. a)i
^3. a)3
14. a)2
^5. a)i
b)2 c)i
b)1 c)3
b)3 c)2
b)2 c)1
b)1 c)3
b)3 c)2
b)2 c)1
b)1 c)3
b)3 c)2
b)2 c)1
b)1 c)3
b)3 c)2
b)2 c)1
b)1 c)3
b)3 c)2
wearing a tie... JUST LIKE
YOUR DAD!
25-40 points
You seem really dedi
cated to the environment,
and, like, making the world a
better place and stuff. That's
cool.
40+ points
Alright, no hugs, but
you win! You're as "heady" as
they come!
you scored...
points
^®‘2S points
Oran ^°seur. After you
'^^^te, the djembe's going
P on Ebay and you'll be
Got something to shout out?
We’ll let you say pretty much
whatever you want for only a
few bucks. The Guilfordian
staff still reserves the right to
edit for content and space.
Drop us an email at guilfor-
dian@guilford.edu.
and many more. Kevin Pollack
impersonates Christopher
Walken during his rendition.
Eric Mead tells the joke using a
pack of cards. Billy the Mime
acts out the joke. Trey Parker
and Matt Stone tell their version
through a South Park skit.
But it's not George Carlin or
Trey Parker and Matt Stone that
get the award for most disturb
ing performance. That honor
goes to Bob Saget, who we all
know as Danny Tanner, the
nerdy clean freak on Full
House. He can't even finish his
own joke without bursting into
laughter and asking, "What the
f*** am I doing with my life?"
Saget may not know what he's
doing with his life, but at least
he brought a lot of laughter into
mine.
Sophomore Josh Cohen said,
"The Aristocrats is, hands
down, the funniest movie I've
seen all year. Ifs a beautifully
woven masterpiece."
I'll agree that it is indeed a
masterpiece, but not in a
Shawshank Redemption kind of
way. I highly recommend The
Aristocrats, but only if you love
dirty, dirty jokes. §8
~ NO NUnn Y. NO VIOII NO
UN.SPE AKABU; OBsO M l 'i'
“A PARTy™.s. MORE THAN
100 COM EDI AMS
i*rii imisti THE HITHIFST K>KE
'* 'L'J iitw> Aso*ccj».vt»v,uu t.JM'itM;
iMiwyisAnoN ioT»ir iiva oj arf*
"kXHni LAUGH TIM IT HURTS!"
*«i votm ivi.N
Of fAT Roet RMOM BW.NG
ADEFIBRIUATORr
y
■.y
YUPROAWOUS!'
•iiiiAiuotJMv PROFANE!'
“HIURIOUSt A iiNjr, «*r wn
“FILTHY
loRKJusivFUNNYr
‘OBSClNC.niWAisn.s'Ci
/ VULGARanoVIIE.
/ ‘inr AMdocftAiv iMiair ii tm
/ / FUNNIEST MOVIE
/ wwn ivukai-
\l
W
(Me,
Jm '>T0mMmmeegmt«m TMINtQRtei
Review: The Exorcism of Emily Rose
Emilie Grant
Staff Writer
Scott Derrickson, who direct
ed the horror classics Dracula,
Urban Legends: Final Cut, and
Hell Raiser: Inferno, wants
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
to be the scariest movie of the
summer. The film has generat
ed buzz, as audiences expect
ing a traditional horror film
may be disappointed.
Emily Rose has been mar
keted as being "based on a
true story," In fact,
Derrickson's adaptation does
not stray far from actual
events. In 1976, the Catholic
Church sanctified the exorcism
of Anneiiese Michel, the last
person to be recognized by
the church as possessed.
Michel died, and the priest
who performed her exorcism
was put on trial for
manslaughter.
Derrickson moves the set
ting to modem day America,
and blends court records with
horror movie motife, an inter
esting hybrid. Parish priest
Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson)
recounts the exorcism of Emily
Rose (Jennifer Carpenter,
White Chicks) in court testimo
nials. Skeptical attorney Erin
Bruner (Laura Linney), who
defends Father Moore in order
to make co-partner at her law
firm, is more interested in fur
thering her career than seeing
justice served.
The prosecuting attorney
Ethan Thomas (Campbell
Scott), a judicious. God-fear
ing man, accuses Father
Moore of neglecting Emily's
true afflictions, which he
argues are schizophrenia and
epilepsy rather than demonic
possession.
The trailers that advertise
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
as a horror film are mislead
ing: Derrickson has filled the
movie with genre cliches
(who's still frightened by cross
es burning the flesh of the
damned, or the possessed
speaking in tongues?), and
truly chilling moments are
scarce.
Teasing and dead-ends are
more plentiful. In one unsatis
fying sequence, Derrickson
attempts to scare audiences
by alluding to a possible
demonic possession of Bruner
herself. Unfortunately, the sub
plot only wastes the audi- .
ence's anticipation: she is fine,
and the slamming doors and
smoke-filled rooms become
pointless and annoying.
While demented cats, car
crashes and "demonic forces"
are part of the appeal of scary
movies, moderation is the key.
Maybe because he was inex
perienced at directing pseudo
courtroom dramas, Derrickson
has gotten carried away
spooking the audience. The
result is an exercise in pre
dictable genre film-making
unlikely to scare anyone.