[English] Mark Knight cartoons analysis

[chrisjb]

Knight’s first article which appeared in The Herald Sun on the twenty first of December sceptically and humorously pokes fun at the Gillard government’s national broadband scheme. The cartoon’s focal point is of the Prime minister as she apparently addresses a crowd of journalists. Knight uses this focal point to mock Ms. Gillard’s credibility and that of her scheme. This is most apparent in the text bubble rising from Julia Gillard which proposes with humour that Australians would be able to download obscene photos of football players ‘100 times faster’. In presenting this text, Knight invites the reader to undermine the Gillard government’s policy and view it as unnecessary. Knight also superficially attempts to use the same focal point of Ms. Gillard to undermine her credibility on a physical level. The prime minister is shown as having a figure oscillating between plump and lanky and Knights also exaggerates her vulture like nose. This is not likely a direct attempt to undermine the prime minister, but rather a signal or sign-post to the reader that the crudely drawn character is likely to be the butt of the joke and the focus of the discontent of Mr. Knight. It also ensures that the reader is aware of the character’s real-world persona.

Knight uses a similar approach to his ‘Myki’ cartoon. In this cartoon Knight uses the character of the transport minister’s dialogue to cynically and ironically poke fun at the former government’s Myki ticketing scheme. In this cartoon the rear side of the minister is seen in business wear working as a tradesperson would on a ticketing machine and comparing the machine to an ‘expensive boat anchor’. In a similar manner to the broadband cartoon, this image relies on the ironic dismissal of a serious government policy as a pointless plaything. In this case, a ‘boat anchor’ would be seen by many viewers as an entirely useless object and not at all helpful to the boarding, taxi or exit of a locomotive. This is likely to trigger readers to feel that the ticketing system as a whole is useless or unnecessary. This image also adopts the strategy used in Knight’s first piece of superficially undermining a person of authority. The position of the respectfully dressed transport minister suggests that perhaps his authority and his class are not relevant to the issue at hand. He is shown in a tangle of wires which could perhaps be an effort to undermine his importance in the issue. This could, however also be seen as a term of endearment. His position in the frame amongst the wires could be seen by the reader as showing that the Myki system’s façade of responsibility and effectiveness- as symbolised by the clean, crisp outer shell of the ticketing box has been pierced by the new transport minister who is attempting to resolve the problem- as symbolised by the labyrinth of wires surrounding him. The final effect is very much dependant on the character of the reader in this instance.

Knight’s final cartoon is different from his previous two in that an attempt to undermine authority is in no way nestled at the core of his image. In this cartoon which concerns the spate of violent or unnecessary force used by some ticketing officials Knight primarily relies on a humorous victimisation of a character in what is a very Leunig-esque style of cartoon. The most obvious technique used by Knights to reach this aim is the contrasting size and characteristics of the central character- who appears limber and lanky- and the two ticketing officials- who appear burly and tough. This could create a sense of fear amongst the readers who would view the smaller of the characters as a victim or potential victim of the larger two.
However, Knight qualifies this strong violent symbolism through the use of humour which helps to be-subtle the harshness of the original image. The facial expression of the central character whilst he reads the sign warning him of ‘being bashed by a ticket inspector’ is likely to lend a humorous under-tone to the piece and perhaps create a sort of irony which questions the seriousness of the issue.

[werdna]

Hey Chris, you probably found the Week 2 analysis a killer. Mainly because you didn't have to do a comparative analysis on the 3 cartoons; you had to just write one paragraph on each cartoon and leave it at that. So, just 3 separate paragraphs.. you didn't actually need to compare and contrast these cartoons, it would've been tough to do as they're on totally different issues. So to clarify, just one single paragraph per cartoon, nothing less, nothing more.

Edit: These instructions were on the Feb work thread, but probably weren't made clear enough. Sorry about the confusion!

[chrisjb]

oh, whoops my bad... If i cut out the intro and conclusion then it basicaly meets the criteria set, I'll jus do that.

As a side note, it was actualy quite fun trying to compare the three, a good excersise of the mind.

[Water]

Knight’s first article No Article which appeared in The Herald Sun on the twenty first of December sceptically and humorously pokes fun at the Gillard government’s national broadband scheme. The cartoon’s focal point is of the Prime minister as she apparently addresses a crowd of journalists. Knight uses this focal point to mock Ms. Gillard’s credibility and that of her scheme. This is most apparent in the text bubble rising from Julia Gillard which proposes proposes? Maybe stronger word with humour that Australians would be able to download obscene photos of football players ‘100 times faster’. In presenting this text, Knight invites *positions* inviting someone to undermine, sounds abit awkward the reader to undermine the Gillard government’s policy and to view it as unnecessary. Knight also superficially attempts to use the same focal pointAbit Wordy now of Ms. Gillard to undermine her credibility on a physical level. The prime minister is shown as having a figure oscillating between plump and lanky and Knights also exaggerates her vulture like nose. This is not likely a direct attempt to undermine the prime minister, but rather a signal or sign-post to the reader that the crudely drawn character is likely to be the butt of the joke Abit too slangy here, perhaps more formal and get to the point. Of course, this is subjective, others might like it and the focus of the discontent of Mr. Knight. It also ensures that the reader is aware of the character’s real-world persona. Unnecessary, I believe.

Knight uses a similar approach to his ‘Myki’ cartoon. In this, Weak cartoon Knight uses the character of the transport minister’s dialogue to cynically and ironically poke fun at the former government’s Myki ticketing scheme The policy is still implemented. In this cartoon the rear side of the minister is seen in business wear working as a tradesperson would on a ticketing machine and comparing the machine to an ‘expensive boat anchor’. In a similar manner to the broadband cartoon, this image relies on the ironic dismissal of a serious government policy as a pointless plaything colloquialism. Bad. In this case, a ‘boat anchor’ would be seen by many viewers as an entirely useless object and not at all helpful to the boarding, taxi or exit of a locomotive The transition and the sentence appears to be wordy. This is likely to trigger readers Just get to the point, No ramble or anything like "likely" and stuff to feel that the ticketing system as a whole is useless or unnecessary. This image also adopts the strategy used in Knight’s first piece of tosuperficially undermininge a person of authority. The position of the respectfully dressed transport minister suggests that perhaps his authority and his class are not relevant to the issue at hand. He is shown in a tangle of wires which could perhaps be an effort to undermine his importance in the issue But he is the transport minister, the very functioning body of the myki scheme. How is he not important in the issue. Who can change the policy? The Transport minister.. This could, however also be seen as a term of endearment. His position in the frame amongst the wires could be seen by the reader as showing that the Myki system’s façade of responsibility and effectiveness- as symbolised by the clean, crisp outer shell of the ticketing box has been pierced by the new transport minister who is attempting to resolve the problem- as symbolised by the labyrinth of wires surrounding him Incredibly wordy and awkward o.O. The final effect is very much dependant on the character of the reader in this instance I'm not sure, but you seem to be "suggesting and "implying" different kinds of effects and explainations. You need to be more concise. I felt confused by the end of the paragraph, as though, you couldn't put your thoughts down in one clear cut motion..

Knight’s final cartoon is different from his previous two in that an attempt huh? to undermine authority is in no way nestled at the core of his image. In this cartoon which Get to the point, The Cartoon concerns* concerns the spate of violent or unnecessary force used by some ticketing officials Knight primarily relies on a humorous victimisation of a character in what is a very Leunig-esque style of cartoon. The most obvious technique used by Knights to reach this aim is the contrasting size and characteristics of the central character- who appears limber and lanky- and the two ticketing officials- who appear burly and tough. This couldNo could, just This will create a feeling of create a sense of fear amongst the readers who would view the smaller of the characters as a victim or potential victim of the larger two. However, Knight qualifies this strong violent symbolism through the use of humour which helps to be-subtle the harshness of the original image. The facial expression of the central character whilst he reads the sign warning him of ‘being bashed by a ticket inspector’ is likely to lend a humorous under-tone to the piece and perhaps create a sort of irony which questions the seriousness of the issue.Okay





General Comments: Wow, this was quite a lengthy read to be honest. You appear to be able to list the techniques, supposedly intended effects and a thorough explanation of the techniques employed. However, you tend to drag on with your explanations in ways that appear to be lengthy and wordy. In short, attempt to be more concise in your sentence structure. How is this done? Shorten your sentences, and do not add to many layers to the explanation which was apparent in your piece of writing. You want the examiner to know, you got the explanation, go in depth with your explanation, at ONE ANGLE, and the INTENDED EFFECT. By Intended, you do not add "could, perhaps," or whatever ambiguous words that can come into play. It will just clog up your essay, make it wordy.  

Also, you had some weak linking between paragraphs to paragraph or through sentence to sentence, but that could be because of the wordiness. When you illustrate "Knight's final cartoon" just touch on the illustration of the cartoon at the start as your topic sentence. This just allows the reader some understanding on what your talking about, prior to explaining.

I know this is your literature side at work, but Language Analysis is one point only, and if you are going to be liberal, make it a narrow liberal thought .


Score: 6.8 - 7

The Mark though, is subjective.

[jane1234]

Very good analysis of the cartoons!! Here's a few things to work on:

- Especially in the second paragraph, you seem to be unsure about your own intepretation. "This could, however also be seen as a term of endearment" seems to contradict what you were saying earlier. Remember that as long as you have evidence to back it up, your intepretation can't really be "wrong" but it is confusing if you have two different ones!
- You analyse the images well, but you could speak a bit more specifically on the effect on the reader/viewer and analyse how the cartoon will influence them.
- "The final effect is very much dependant on the character of the reader in this instance." - felt this is too generic, and does nothing to actually analyse what the effect does.

Overall, good job!! I'd probably give it 7.5-8/10