Video Joke Comparisons

  The differences within these two videos start with the genre.  Whereas the first video was supposed to be more of a suspense thriller (as much as possible with this silly joke), the second is supposed to be slapstick comedy.  And from this major difference stems the aesthetic differences, especially within movement and rhythm.  Within the first video the movement is relatively slow and simple.  This is because it moves at a realistic type of pace.  It also some what adds to the suspense because it is so methodic and a tad slower, which allows for the curiosity of the viewer to build.  The rhythm is similar in that it is also simple.  The pattern within the frame kind of goes back and forth between shots, and the scenes tend to get more busy toward the end.  This also adds to the build up of suspense. Within the second video both of these aspects are different as a result of the genre change.  The movement is still fairly simple, yet it is a bit more rushed and exaggerated to place emphasis on the slapstickgenre.  Since slapstick is often silent, the movement has to over compensate. Most of the visual rhythm is similar because the scene and setting is similar, however the cuts are quicker creating a faster rhythm in that manner.
Contrast and Infinity is used differently in each video as well.  It is used mainly with the characters.  In the first video there is a sharp contrast between the parrot and the repairman, because the bird is not even a real bird.  It is a picture.  Part of this was not being able to use a real bird, but the contrast also alludes to the realistic nature of this video in contrast to the other.  In the other there is an affinity between the bird and the repairman, because they are both acted out by humans.  This adds a comical quality to the video that is characteristic of slapstick.  Text and Subtext is used very similarly because all of the dialogue is displayed very clearly as text.  So there is not much subtext to it.  Where it differs between the two videos is that in the second video the ending is not as spelled out as the first video, so the audience has to read more into the subtext of the video to get the joke.