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.
My Sources:
https://prezi.com/jvhdh7dzrh90/the-eight-patterns-of-humor/
https://edwardwillett.com/2009/04/a-universal-theory-of-humour/
Rebecca's Blog 
Do you think that the 8 patterns all basically describe a version of incongruity theory? Is this a breaking down of incongruity? What do you think?
LikeLike