In Class 10 English, students look broadly at genres; they dissect and master the elements — setting, character types, narrative techniques — that compose them. From literary fiction and memoir to, most recently, satire, the students become well-versed in viewing, analyzing and producing works in a desired style.
Their recent unit on satire, led by Director of the Annenberg Center for Learning and Research Liza Oldham, strengthened the students’ critical thinking, writing and analytical skills, and media literacy.
Building this unit into the English 10 curriculum was an intentional choice by the Class 10 faculty team and Ms. Oldham. Not only are students at this age more emotionally mature and ready to engage with satirical content, it also helps to create the foundation for The American Experience, a required Class 11 interdisciplinary course in English, history and the arts. Tying in film and other mediums help prepare students for more advanced endeavors the following year.
During their introduction to satire lesson, the Class 10 students observed a variety of media from satirical cartoons, The Book of Mormon musical to SNL sketches of American politicians, and discovered how successful satire artfully blends critiques with entertainment. “They also examined satirical texts,” Ms. Oldham shared. “From classics like those by Jonathan Swift to newer pieces by Fran Leibowitz and Maria Semple.”
Satire, they learned, is a genre that uses humor and exaggeration to “expose, criticize or mock something.” The goal is to challenge or “correct” a particular “wrong” — or, at the very least, provoke thought in the audience.
Ms. Oldham provided students with the definitions of the three types of satire: Horatian (witty, good natured, gently mocking), Menippean (leans gentle, elicits laughter and shaking of the head at the absurdity), and Juvenalian (darker, elicits rueful laughs and aims to expose or outrage).
Equipped with this fundamental knowledge, the 10th graders engaged in thoughtful discussions about the complications of the genre. They considered whether art portrayed as satire is really just being mean, what counts as “wrong,” and if giving a wrong or wrongdoer fame/media attention can backfire.
Ms. Oldham emphasized that she seeks to “ground students’ emotional response in critical thinking,” to help students articulate why they feel a certain way and help them have productive discussions with those with whom they might disagree.
As their skills grew, the students worked both individually and collaboratively to determine who/what was being satirized along with satirical goals of each piece and how it achieves these goals, with consideration of ethos, logos and pathos. They read and annotated scholarly articles, including “Satire is more damaging to reputations than direct criticism,” from the American Psychological Association and “The Ethics of Political Satire” from the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University.
Ms. Oldham encouraged her students to think about “how the findings of these studies compare with your individual experiences or opinion development,” and “do comedians have any ethical responsibilities regarding the political information they disseminate or does the responsibility ultimately lie with the consuming public”?
Pivoting to a new medium — film — the students spent time during their March classes watching the 1997 film Wag the Dog starring Robert de Niro and Dustin Hoffman. A political satire directed by Barry Levinson, the movie follows a “spin doctor” and a Hollywood producer who help government officials fabricate a war to distract citizens from a presidential scandal breaking just days before the election.
Ms. Oldham and the English 10 team intentionally chose to view the film during class rather than assign it for homework. The film is one students “likely wouldn’t have chosen for themselves” and having an adult guide their conversations and provide clarity around any of the content was essential in supporting their understanding. “We left 10-15 minutes each day for a class-wide discussion,” Ms. Oldham noted.
At the film’s end, the students put their new skills into practice by writing an analytical review that argued whether the film succeeded in its satirical goals and explained why they would or would not recommend the movie to other people their age.
One student noted, “...I liked how the president was kept faceless throughout the film. This choice made it feel like the president could represent any political leader, which helped emphasize the message that powerful people behind the scenes can manipulate situations…I [also] think it did a good job with its satirical message…it makes fun of how the American government can sometimes treat war like a small political problem, even though war affects millions of people in serious ways.”
Another student provided a thoughtful analysis, claiming that Wag the Dog uses satire to “examine the complex relationships among politics, media, and entertainment, arguing that perception can be shaped by, or even manufactured, through spectacle.” She bolstered her argument by highlighting specific cinematic elements from the film.
Another student, reflecting on a particular scene, wrote, “This scene handles mature content in a way that embodies true Juvenalian satire: the viewer is left with an uncomfortable feeling about the true nature of the American government that will hopefully inspire them to confront the possibility of corruption in our politics. Naturally, we aren’t supposed to believe that we have been or will be manipulated by our government to the extent of the events in the film — they’re a stylized overdramatization that is typical of satire to more effectively drive home a point — but we are supposed to come away from the movie with heightened skepticism towards what we are shown by the government.” She concludes by saying that in today’s world — with technology and myriad content, both positive and negative, at our fingertips — “we must learn not to blindly believe everything we are shown by authority, and learning this lesson through a film that skillfully balances humor with serious themes seems like a great solution to me.”
