What’s really going on here other than a good argument for the return of corporal punishment in schools?

Cidu Bill on Oct 16th 2017


Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, Frazz, Jef Mallett, comic strips, comics, humor | 17 responses so far

17 Responses to “What’s really going on here other than a good argument for the return of corporal punishment in schools?”

  1. Seth Oct 16th 2017 at 12:16 am 1

    This seems unusually aggressive and unwitty for Caulfield. The “joke” seems to be the teacher isn’t being clear. But she’s being very clear and, under the circumstances, reasonable. Flashing a light into her eyes (and implying blowing a horn) is at best slapstick, not clever.

  2. Folly Oct 16th 2017 at 12:39 am 2

    Previous posting:

    No consensus really on what the joke is though.

  3. Cidu Bill Oct 16th 2017 at 12:44 am 3

    Yeah, I thought it looked familiar.

  4. Brent Oct 16th 2017 at 03:17 am 4

    The “click” is the sound of the police door getting locked as they take Caulfield away after interrogating him at the school until dark. Really… schools will call the cops now for levels of disturbance like this. Even my home town elementary calls the cops for things now as part of their standard response… and the nearest cop shop to it is now 70km away. After all, better the cops than the staff if things go wonky and posted to the net.

  5. Daniel J. Drazen Oct 16th 2017 at 07:12 am 5

    This makes me think of “1st Awesome Platoon,” a Facebook group that’s aimed at military bronies and which makes plenty of jokes at the expense of the Coast Guard.

  6. chuckers Oct 16th 2017 at 07:26 am 6

    I also remember this one being just as hard to read.

  7. Christine Oct 16th 2017 at 07:59 am 7

    It comes across as Caulfield being so desperate for the joke to work that he didn’t even follow his own logic in when to apply it. That’s out of character for him, so the joke really doesn’t work as well as it could. (Lots of the jokes in Frazz really work out to “Caulfield is being a brat at an authority figure’s expense”, so that’s expected, not unique to this joke.)

  8. Mark M Oct 16th 2017 at 09:57 am 8

    I agree with chuckers. If I have to think this much to even figure out what order the panels are supposed to be in, then it’s too much effort.

  9. Olivier Oct 16th 2017 at 10:42 am 9

    “If I have to think this much to even figure out what order the panels are supposed to be in, then it’s too much effort.”
    Then, turn on a light and blow a horn ;) .

  10. Winter Wallaby Oct 16th 2017 at 11:20 am 10

    It’s not just that it’s difficult to decide between two different, but equally good, panel orderings. The large vertical panel in the middle “makes clear” that the second panel should be the one in the bottom left, so the ordering just seems wrong.

  11. fleabane Oct 16th 2017 at 03:22 pm 11

    Surely the last panel is turning *off* the lights? Or is the rest of the panel darkened to highlight the floodlights. But why a click and not the horn? It seems like the click is the lights going off. But *why*? If turning lights on and blowing a horn an indication of things being clear, then is turning off the lights and being silent a sign that everything is perfectly clear? Which wouldn’t logically follow. But if it doesn’t, then turning off the lights in no more relevant than throwing ham at a penguin would be.

  12. James Pollock Oct 16th 2017 at 06:50 pm 12

    “Surely the last panel is turning *off* the lights?”

    Nope. Just turning on a spotlight that is so bright it makes ordinary room lighting SEEM LIKE utter darkness.

    Not sure why the horn isn’t ALSO being sounded in the same instant. Perhaps Caulfield wanted to save something for after the lesson actually started…

  13. Boise Ed Oct 17th 2017 at 02:16 am 13

    Good idea, Olivier [9].

  14. DanV Oct 19th 2017 at 01:44 pm 14

    What Caulfield has there is a floodlight, not a spotlight. Much broader beam, not nearly as intense. To achieve the effect in panel four, the room lights would have to be turned off. Just adding the floodlight would certainly brighten the teacher, but there would still be ambient light illuminating the rest of the room and the back of her shoulders. So the click is the simultaneous killing of the overhead lights and Caulfield switching on his portable flood. Doesn’t make the joke work any better, since he stated the light and horn are used when things aren’t clear, and Mrs. Olsen is quite clearly stating he needs to quit the foolishness and get to studying.

  15. James Pollock Oct 19th 2017 at 04:42 pm 15

    “What Caulfield has there is a floodlight, not a spotlight.”

    I don’t think so. He’s chosen a lighthouse as a theme for this gag, and lighthouses don’t use floods. Thanks to the magic of Fresnel lenses, lighthouses have extremely tight beams, but they’re adjustable to suit weather conditions.

    From within a Fresnel beam, the difference between a spot and a flood is purely academic. You don’t have to go all the way to a lighthouse to see this; any local TV station that produces its own newscast is full of Fresnel spots, too. Being under the lights in a TV studio is between 10 and 20 degrees warmer than is the rest of the studio.

    So, given Caulfield’s attention to detail, his “lighthouse” has a spotlight in it, not a flood. You can’t tell the difference in the cartoon because Mrs. Olsen is square in the center of the spot, and we only see her immediate surroundings, which are ALSO in the spot.

    “To achieve the effect in panel four, the room lights would have to be turned off.”
    The lights are clearly on in panel four. How many panels do you see in this cartoon?

  16. DanV Oct 23rd 2017 at 10:46 am 16

    Sorry James. The light pictured is a floodlight. Doesn’t have a fresnel lens, wide open face. (Lights with a fresnel don’t have the safety cage on the front, as the lens itself protects the user from showers of hot glass in case the lamp explodes.) The lighting pattern illustrated is more of a spot pattern, that was part of my point. That fixture would not yield that pattern.
    Having worked in television production for nearly 40 years, I do know the difference. (And I wasn’t counting the center lighthouse scene as a panel.)

  17. James Pollock Oct 23rd 2017 at 01:20 pm 17

    “That fixture would not yield that pattern.”
    But it did.

    “Having worked in television production for nearly 40 years, I do know the difference.”
    My own TV production career was substantially briefer, but studio lighting has little to do with either lighting a lighthouse OR a classroom, and in either case you’re looking for realism in a place that isn’t likely to contain much of it.

    You’re arguing that the light is a flood because you recognize the light that was drawn by the artist as a floodlight. I’m arguing that the light is a spot because the story calls for a spot. I’m both generous enough to say we can both be right, and childishly petty to insist that I’m just slightly MORE right.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply