In Grace’s lead blog she analyzed a bizarre video entitled “4 Bad Cups.” In this video a man in a high pitched voice tried four different beverages on a table. As Grace pointed out, the setting of the video was quite weird. It took place in an all white room. Grace noted that it resembled a mental institution. The room is white but has weird scratches on the wall and for some reason there were two dollar bills on the floor. The cups were on a small kid sized table, that appeared to have paint on it. Grace claimed the weird appearance of the room related to how millennials laugh at weird and bizarre things because they themselves are weird and bizarre. She also saw this common trend in the voice and mannerisms of the speaker in the video. It makes no sense that a grown man would talk in a high pitched voice and drink beverages that he does not know. Obviously, this video is acted out by the guy. He did not have the camera on him when he was “drinking” each beverage so I do not believe the guy actually drank the beverages. Who would actually drink a cup of glue? He probably set up these cups of different liquids himself, so he would know that there is glue in there. The mannerisms of the guy in the video follow how bizarre and awkward millennials are. Similarly, Grace comments on how the actual content of the video is also weird. Would our parents’ generation find this video funny? Would they think it is humorous that someone would drink glue? Probably not. The idea of drinking unknown beverages would not be humorous to everyone, but it makes sense that this video would be popular among millennials.
In Walker’s blog this week he did something a little different than usual. While normally we analyze a clip that is a skit or an acted out scene, Walker analyzed a series of jokes from a stand up comedian named Anthony Jeselnik. The jokes he made were on controversial topics and each joke had a clear punch line. Walker claims his humor aligns well with superiority theory because Jeselnik acts as if he is superior to the audience. He acts very cocky, which I believe is probably an act and he talks down to the audience. The superior theory claims something is funny to someone when they feel superior to them in a situation, like when someone falls down and you laugh at them because they are inferior to you for falling. Walker describes the theory in almost the opposite sense. According to Walker, Jeselnik does this one bit where he called out an audience member for their loud laugh. He asks her what she does for a living and she claims she is handicapped and does not work. Jeselnik replies with “I knew it.” Walker does not specify if the woman he called out laughs. If the woman does laugh, then this would possibly be an example of “Inferiority theory.” Just like we have decided there is a counterpart to incongruity theory – congruity theory – there might be an inferiority theory, which acts as opposite to superiority theory. Inferiority theory entails laughing when you feel inferior to someone in a situation. This would apply when you fall down and laugh at yourself.
For my lead blog, I am analyzing a clip from the show Brooklyn Nine-Nine, in which the main character Jake, a detective, is conducting a police line up. The witness is trying to identify who killed her brother, which is unknown to the audience until the end of the clip. Out of all the theories we have learned so far I believe the incongruity theory best fits this clip. First of all, there is the juxtaposition of the catchy, upbeat tune from “I Want It That Way” by the Backstreet Boys with the dark process of finding a murderer. No one would expect to sing during a police line up. Even the faces of the people in the line up show confusion as they are asked to sing “I Want It That Way.” The people in the line up are hesitant to sing at first, but as Jake gets into it, so do the men in the line up. This just adds to the humor. As Jake gets more into the song, the clip switches between the line up and Jake and the woman. There is incongruity in the manners of Jake and the woman. As Jake progressively becomes more excited about the song, even to the point of him exclaiming “Woo!” the woman continues to look concerned during the whole process. The woman’s demeanor is what you would expect from a police line up. The contrast between the two is built to the point where Jake exclaims “Chills! Literal Chills!” and then, the audience is hit with that line “It was number five. Number five killed my brother.”
Probably many of you have seen this clip in some form or another. I have seen this clip through memes, recreations, and from when I actually watched the show. My friends and I also reference this clip all the time with the line “Chills! Literal Chills!” Everyone has that one line from a meme or video in which you and your friends reference constantly. Or there is always that one friend who basically speaks in movie, tv show, vine, etc. references. These references always make the situation more funny. But why?
In one of my previous blogs I talked about a theory that fits why these references can be so funny. I could not find a good source, other than the theorist’s novel, that fully explains the theory, but I have pieced together what I think the theory is. (I will put my sources below that will probably have better explanations of the theory). In 2009 Alastair Clarke, a British evolutionary theorist, categorized humor into 8 different patterns. He believes these 8 patterns encapsulate all the other humor theories. A joke could fit under one category, but usually fits under multiple patterns. The patterns a joke fits under will be different for each person because humor is subjective. “The eight patterns break down into four ‘patterns of fidelity,’ involving the recognition of units within the same context, and four ‘patterns of magnitude,’ involving recognition of the same unit repeated in multiple contexts.” The patterns of fidelity include positive repetition, division, completion, and translation. The patterns of magnitude include opposition, application, qualification, and scale. The link for the Prezi below was the best source I found for explaining the different patterns simply.
I think the reason why we find references humorous fits perfectly into this theory. I believe it falls under the patterns of positive repetition, translation, and maybe qualification. Patterns of positive repetition “applies to anything which can be repeated and compared,” which is exactly what making a reference does. Translation “applies when a unit is converted from one medium to another.” References are usually converted from an on-screen medium to a verbal medium. Qualification applies when “a unit is applied to different conditions or actions.” I think qualification could apply because a reference is applied in the context of a movie, TV show, or other video and then applied by a person when they verbally say the reference in a different context.
In Mallory’s blog this week she analyzed a video from the Limmy’s Show, in which a Scottish man named Limmy poked fun at the fact that people pay for bottled water when we have access to tap water from our faucets at home. This video is the perfect example of satire to me. This video criticizes and pokes fun at people who buy bottled water. Most satirical pieces are based around controversial political views and this video is just taking a stance on bottled waters. I think the purpose of satire is to point out flaws and get people thinking. I agree that people should use less plastic bottles and start using their faucets at home more and use reusable bottles more. Yet, when I was watching this video I almost got defensive over plastic water bottles; sometimes they are necessary; sometimes they are the only source of water you buy; they are easy and not a hassle. However, even with all those pros of bottles water, I still believe that we should use less of them. And I think that is exactly what satire is meant to do. Satire is meant to get you thinking and promote change.
I believe satire is one of the greatest aspects of humor that superiority theory accounts for. The audience feels superior to the people in the video for not knowing that the faucet has water. But this is only to a degree because we know that these characters are just acting and using exaggeration. In satire, the audience feels superior to the people who the satirical piece is making fun of. In this case, the video is poking fun at people who excessively buy bottled water.
In Elizabeth’s blog she analyzed a video called “Company is Coming” in which a male Youtuber pretends to be a mother, getting her house ready for company. The Youtuber is alone in this skit as the video jumps from one scene to another of the mother character yelling for something to be cleaned in the house. Elizabeth’s touches on the ideas of exaggeration being used to make this scene funnier. The exaggeration of something relatable, like excessively cleaning the house before company comes over, is part of the reason this scene is so funny.
However, one of the funniest parts of the video for me was when the mother character made comparisons, like when she claimed she wanted “this place to look like Disney on Ice in one minute” or when she claimed she wanted “the toilets to look like one of those chairs from the Men In Black headquarters.” These pop culture references were funnier to me than the other comparisons, like claiming she wanted their pillows to look like “microwavable popcorn bags – three minutes deep.” Although I found this joke about the pillows looking like popcorn funny, I think the jokes where something was compared to a pop-culture references were funnier.
I believe pop culture references, like when people reference certain movie quotes or when people reference memes, are funny because you can identify them. Alastair Clarke, a British evolutionary theorist, believes that “the brain subconsciously seeks out the patterns and when it discovers them is rewarded for its efforts.” I think his claim fits very well with why pop culture references are funny. If you did not understand a pop culture reference it would just be confusing. For example, if you reference at movie or tv show quote and the person you are talking to has never seen it, then the most they might provide is some awkward laughs of confusion. I feel like I have experienced this numerous times on both ends, as the person who makes the unknown reference and the person who does not know the reference. According to Clarke’s theory, when you do identify a pop culture reference you are rewarded, which in turn makes you laugh.
In McKenna’s blog she analyzed a Saturday Night Live Skit entitled “Debbie Downer.” In this skit a woman named Debbie continued to say pessimistic things while on a vacation to Disney World with her family. McKenna claimed that this video’s humor aligned with the incongruity theory of humor. She states that “Audiences do not expect what Debbie may say next.” Although we do not know exactly what Debbie will say next, after awhile we know that it will be negative, especially after the theme song about Debbie Downer. The theme song about Debbie being a “Debbie Downer” introduces her character as someone who will keep saying pessimistic things.
I believe the actual content of clip would fit superiority theory better because the audience is laughing at the misfortune of Debbie’s family. They have to suffer through Disney World with her and the audience feels superior to Debbie’s family.
However, I do agree with McKenna that the laughing of the characters makes the clip funnier. I believe this humorous aspect of the skit follows the benign violation theory. Debbie breaks social norms by bringing up negative topics that people do not usually bring up. Like when she told Pluto about how the biggest drawback to working at a theme park is the constant fear of terrorist attacks. This is the violation aspect. When the actors break character it reminds the audience that this is not real and that this skit is just an exaggeration. This break of the fourth wall adds to the benign aspect.
On Lauren’s blog this week she posted a video about a Barbie Doll complaining to her doll boyfriend about how he is not romantic. This video touched on some serious topics like gender roles and norms. I agree with Lauren that this video does contain tendentious jokes, which are a part of relief theory, because it brings up gender in a comedic way and releases the tensions brought up with it. Sigmund Freud, creator of relief theory, believes humor results when tensions are created within us and then we release that built-up laughter. Sigmund Freud claims that tendentious jokes are funnier than innocent jokes. Although this may be mostly true, it is not a given. I did not find this video as funny as some innocent jokes I have heard. Often tendentious jokes are more humorous because the tensions they release are greater. We have greater tensions built up about controversial issues, like gender norms or sex. So what made this video less funny to me than some innocent jokes I have seen? Maybe it was because some of these jokes are so played out. The jokes in this video were jokes I feel like I have heard lots of times. I have heard the Romeo and Juliet joke numerous times. It usually goes the same: someone claims that they desire to be like Romeo and Juliet and then someone else jumps into to say that their story was actually quite tragic. I also feel like I have seen the same joke over and over again about women freaking out about how a man acts in a relationship. At a certain point do some jokes become old and overplayed? I feel like this can relate to the incongruity theory. This theory claims that the unexpectedness of two ideas coming together is what makes something funny. Right after the female Barbie mentioned Romeo and Juliet I knew what the male doll would say. Perhaps if I had not expected these jokes, they would have been more humorous to me.
In Anna Kathleen’s blog this week she analyzed a video about Jeanne Robertson, a comedian. In this video Jeanne Robertson tells a story from her life about her husband going to the supermarket. Anna Kathleen claims that the way Jeanne Robertson tells this story makes it comedy. According to Anna Kathleen’s blog, maybe this story was funny in the moment when it happened to Jeanne Robertson, but her recount of the story makes it comedy. From this, Anna Kathleen goes on to say how she differentiates between something that is just funny and something that is comedy. She claims that comedy is funny, but not everything that is funny is comedy. When she claims this Anna Kathleen includes a parenthetical that says “most of the time” next to “comedy is still funny.” Because of this parenthetical, I would argue that her claim “comedy is funny, but something funny is not always comedy” is not true. I agree that something funny is not always comedy, but I would argue that comedy is not always funny. Everyone has a different sense of humor and will not find everything funny that other people do. This brings up the topic of when you can identify when something is comedy, but it is not funny to you. For example, political comedians, like John Oliver, are still considered comedians even if some people do not think their jokes are funny. If your political views do not align with a certain political comedian, you would probably not think they are funny. Perhaps, this theory could be altered to say that if a sizable population of people finds something funny it is comedy. There is lots of comedy out there and for every piece of comedy, someone is bound to not find it funny or humorous.
This week on Alex’s blog post he analyzed two different videos. He argued that none of the four theories of comedy (incongruity, superiority, relief, and benign-violation) could fully account for why both of these videos are funny. Alex made some really good points about the weaknesses of each theory.
I agree with Alex that benign-violation theory has the strongest argument for why these videos are funny. Alex’s reason for why benign-violation theory did not work for these videos was that it does not account for “the fact that it is so random.” He goes on to say that these videos are funnier because they are read sequentially. He claims that if only one of the quotes was read off it would only be “slightly funny.” However, this does not make sense to me. He is claiming that benign-violation theory does not work because it does not account for the randomness of these videos. Yet, wouldn’t it be more random if a quote was read off singularly? I agree with Alex that the quotes are funnier because they are read sequentially, but I do not understand his logic. In the videos, after awhile, the quotes are not “random.” You expect a quote about pregnant being spelled wrong; you expect a weird thing about the Sims patch notes.
I am not sure why the sequential reading of this is funnier than just one quote read. I think it may be because when you start laughing it is sometimes hard to stop or it is easier to laugh again. In these videos there is one joke after the other. After your first initial laugh, you find yourself laughing at more of the jokes – at least that’s what happened to me. I also showed the videos to my friends and they followed the same sequence. They were a little hesitant at first when laughing, but once they laughed at one joke, they laughed at more afterwards. I am not sure why these videos are funny or why the sequential readings of the quotes and the patch notes make it funnier.
In Jack’s blog this week he analyzed a scene by Key and Peele. This video involved a substitute teacher pronouncing people’s names wrong. These names like “Blake” should have been easy to say. Instead of saying “Blake,” the teacher pronounces it “Block-Ay.” Blake is a pretty normal name so most people would know how to pronounce it. The exaggeration in this scene adds to the comedic content. To push this exaggeration further the substitute teacher towards the end of the clip even pronounces the principal’s name wrong.
Often exaggeration in comedy has to do with something relatable or annoying being pushed to a hyperbolic degree.
This clip is relatable to so many people. Most people have had a substitute teacher pronounce their name wrong. This scene takes that annoyance and turns it into humor through the use of exaggeration. Although I have seen this clip before, I have seen it more times in memes. I believe most memes are often set up in the same way this scene is. Memes take an annoyance or something relatable and then exaggerate.
For example, the meme above is greatly exaggerated. People do not usually act like that when finding the “perfect avocado.” This exaggeration is what makes it funny. Exaggerations help better convey what people are feeling. In writing, the function of exaggerations is to give emphasis to certain ideas, actions, feelings, or features. Memes emphasize something relatable. Like much of humor, memes do not follow a specific format. Not all memes are funny because of relatable content or exaggeration.
Another common place to see exaggeration is in satire. Satirical pieces are used to expose and critic people or topics. When an exaggeration is used in satire it aides the mocking or ridiculing of the topic. While exaggeration is not the only mean used in satire, it is an important one.
Exaggeration is used in many different types of comedic pieces. Personally, I think exaggeration follows the benign violation theory best. Exaggerations are usually used on a serious or relatable topic. Exaggerations make the serious topic benign by making it seem ridiculous or extravagant.
Rebecca's Blog 