Lead Blog Response: Mockumentaries

Although the sitcom format will always be a classic and beloved part of American television history, it has inevitably become outdated. The mockumentary format has eclipsed the sitcom as the supreme form of episodic comedy on television. The Office, Modern Family, and Parks and Recreation all have one thing in common: they deal with ordinary circumstances, and amplify the quirks of ordinary people. Sitcoms essentially do the same thing, but there is a difference. In the early days, sitcoms were filmed in front of a live audience, which made it very clear that the characters in the show were fictional. Maybe we got attached to the character's personalities and stories, but the laughter from the audience - or the laugh track in newer sitcoms - constantly reminded us that these characters were just reflections of ourselves. Again, the same could be said about a mockumentary, but for some reason, the characters in mockumentaries just seem to have to have more depth. There is no element of outside laughter to remind us that these characters aren't real. The element of getting to hear the character's opinions outside of the situational comedy adds a new layer of realness which is why I think mockumentaries are so appealing. However, with the rise of so many different mediums of entertainment, it becomes increasingly difficult to hold an audience's attention. The mockumentary is already being left behind as other forms of comedy are on the rise. Regardless of what happens in the future, the mockumentary will always be an admirable form of comedy in television and film.

Lead Blog Response: Cutaway Gags

Although I do not watch much Family Guy anymore, I grew up with my older brother obsessively watching it. I remember being seven years old, laughing at Stewie's voice and his antics to kill Lois. Obviously I shouldn't have been watching Family Guy in second grade, but it's not like I understood all of the terribly offensive jokes anyway. I do remember that there was a frequent use of cutaway gags, although at the time I did not know what they were called. I just recall Peter referencing various celebrities/characters and cutaways to those people saying bizarre things or being in weird situations. Upon watching the video in Arnav's blog post, it brought back memories about the structure of Family Guy. Now being older and able to understand both the structure of the show and its content, I agree that the show seems to rely heavily on these cutaway gags. However, I do not think this is a bad thing. Especially with references to movies and other things in popular culture, these cutaway gags often enhance the joke. I watched The Shawshank Redemption over the summer, and although my brother had not seen it, of course he knew of the Family Guy parody. I found the parody to be hilarious and extremely well-done, and I think that the reenactment of famous moments in the movie definitely enhanced the humor. Another example of a successful cutaway gag in the clip is the first one, when Jesus tells Peter that "My dad just quit smoking and he's a little on edge". The thought of God smoking, then quitting and becoming on edge is funny in itself, but the cutaway gag of a bearded man in white complaining about loosing his checkbook and finding a pen cap with no pen brings this humorous statement to a new level. I do not think the majority of cutaway gags on Family Guy are just random sequences of events. Rather, I think they are well thought-out, comedic details which provide enhancing visuals to the joke.

Lead Blog Response: Fake Laughter

It is interesting to think about how sound has grown to play an indispensable role in comedy - especially since, as Rachel pointed out, comedic films used to have no sound at all. Although humor and wit have always been present in conversation, the beginnings of onscreen comedy had to rely on exaggerated physical movement and facial expressions to evoke laughter from an audience. Another factor that silent films relied on was the accompanying music, which created a certain mood. Music continues to play an important role in television and film, as well as the way shots are cut and edited. Take this video which portrays the presidential debates between Trump and Clinton as flirtatious banter (why). Although this is obviously not a convincing narrative, it demonstrates how sound and editing can take any situation and convey it in a radically different way.

The use of fake laughter in sitcoms has quickly become frowned upon, and the mockumentary format (The Office, Parks and Rec) has become widely appreciated for its reliance on quality writing to induce laughter from viewers. This clip of The Big Bang Theory without the laugh track shows how awkward sitcom-style shows can be without relying on these auditory aids. Saturday Night Live is an entirely different animal, as it is very similar to stand-up comedy when it comes to audience reactions. A sketch can either be a huge hit or bomb completely, and since there is a different audience for the dress rehearsal than the live show, there is no way to know if a sketch will be perceived as funny by that particular group of people. For example, the legendary "Cowbell" sketch did not get significant laughs at dress rehearsal, but during the live show it got a completely different reaction. These reactions can influence the viewers at home, because if we hear people laughing and know that it is authentic, we are likely to laugh too. This very well could be a result of the social permission theory - even if we are watching a show alone on our couch, hearing other people react positively tends to influence how we react ourselves.

When considering the impact that laughter has on our own incentive to laugh at a piece of comedy, I think it really comes down to format. There are certain styles and mediums, such as mockumentary style shows and clips on YouTube, which we do not expect to hear laughter from others. But in instances such as sitcoms and shows with a live audience, the reactions of others can certainly play a role in our incentive to laugh at a joke or situation.

Lead Blog Response: The Outsider

We already know that there is almost always an outsider present in comedy - whether it be a certain group targeted in a stand-up routine, that one person in a friend group who doesn't get an inside joke, or as Thomas discussed, a character within a piece of comedy. All of The Whitest Kids U'Know skits follow a specific formula: ordinary situation + bizarre element + outsider = funny. The difference, as Thomas said, is how this outsider functions in the situation. The Grapist opens with a hilariously disturbing scene, which leaves a first time viewer wondering what the heck they're watching. As the audience, we are the outsider until we realize that this is a marketing pitch. The guy in the middle immediately begins to voice all of our concerns, but no one else thinks his thoughts are valid, which generates humor and allows us to empathize with him. Gallon of PCP allows the audience to be more of a witness to the situation than an active participant. We still relate to the outsider, but he is forced to try and level his reaction to the insanity. The Classroom Skit is the most chaotic of all three sketches, and it is the audience who is left to interpret the nonsensical events. The kid whose mother was thought to be dead can be seen as an outsider, but he still does not question why they are treating a terrible situation with such joviality.

This clip from New Girl shows a character who is an outsider, but instead of questioning the insanity, he tries to play along. He succeeds in doing this, mostly because everyone is getting increasingly wasted.

True American is a drinking game that has appeared numerous times in New Girl, but it is always somewhat of a mystery to the audience. Although there are people who have tried to make sense of the rules: http://epidilius.tumblr.com/post/20882570842/rules-to-new-girls-true-american. Ultimately the game cannot make complete sense to anybody except the characters themselves (or realistically, the writers of New Girl).

In any piece of comedy, the outsider has two options: to resist the confusion or to accept it. Comedy constantly questions normalcy, and acceptance of the bizarre is certainly easier than fighting it.

Lead Blog Response: Hey Abbott

Sketch comedy has always been one of my favorite types of comedy. I appreciate the fact that a sketch can be made out of any situation, as long as it follows a certain formula that builds up to a punchline. Abbott and Costello's formula has surely been an inspiration to comics of today, as their sketches are timeless. Their humor, which relies on misunderstanding about things such as names and math, is something that everyone can relate to. I think a large part of their appeal comes from the fast-paced, back-and-forth type of presentation, which is humorous regardless of what they are talking about. I remember my dad showing me Who's on First when I was probably about ten years old, and even back then I found it funny. As children, words tend to go in one ear and out the other. Instead of analyzing what we heard, we relied more on the tone of the voices and focused on key repetitive words or phrases. That's why Abbott and Costello's humor is easy to understand. Whether they are talking about baseball or paying rent doesn't matter, it is the humorous confusion which is used as a vehicle to create comedy.

This sketch about a census taker (Tina Fey) and a confused old woman (Betty White) displays a similar formula, using a back-and-forth confusion between the two characters, and relying on key phrases to evoke laughter. I also saw this sketch when I was younger, and obviously did not have much of an idea about what a census was. However, I still found this sketch hilarious because of certain details, such as Betty White repeatedly saying her name was "Blarfengar Blarfengar", spelled like "Lee Smith". I think observing other people's confusion is always humorous, because as the outsider we understand what the characters cannot figure out. I would agree with Henry that sketch comedy is certainly very formulaic, although comedy in general is not always this way. Certainly comedy can be spontaneous as it occurs in our every day lives. When someone accidentally trips, or says something to make a fool of themselves, they are not intentionally following a formula. We may be able to analyze why we found it funny after the fact, but in the moment it was simply an occurrence that triggered the biological response of laughter.

Lead Blog Response: Too Soon?

Lindsay's blog raised a very interesting question about the when a tragedy becomes socially acceptable to joke about. This past 9/11, I noticed a lack of remembrance and discussion, in comparison with years past. This could be because I'm used to high school, where we would always spend at least a moment reflecting on it in most of my classes. Of course there were still discussions and tributes, but it just didn't seem as prevalent. Although I do not personally remember that day in 2001, I vividly recall my elementary and middle school teachers talking about the subject with a very present sense of sorrow, which I feel has dulled as the years have gone on. The "Bush did 9/11" conspiracy quickly grew into a meme, and since then, the dissociative remarks have increased. I will never know the true fear and pain felt by those who remember the day, regardless of how much I hear about it or how many documentaries I see. But I think everyone my age at least comprehends how shocking the event was, and how serious of a turning point it was for our country. That being said, every tragedy is bound to become a historical event, and it is a natural human tendency to feel desensitized from an occurrence, no matter how agonizingly brutal, as time goes on. In Joan Rivers' documentary, A Piece of Work, she successfully executes a joke about 9/11. She didn't plan to go there, but after she was insulted by an audience member for a joke about Helen Keller, she spontaneously used the event to demonstrate a point. A man angrily shouted at her, saying that his son is deaf - she fired back by saying that her mother is deaf, and went on to discuss the importance of comedy as a coping mechanism. The audience laughs and cheers as she makes the joke:

It's interesting how in this situation, her joke was acceptable. But as Lindsay said, some jokes are tasteless and take things too far. Of course, whether or not comedy is tasteless is entirely subjective. 9/11 is a calamity that carries different levels of significance across generations, but I think our nation as a whole has been forced to move on, as more current issues arise. Whether or not that means humor should ever be involved when referencing 9/11, that is up to the individual.

Lead Blog Reponse: Deadpan and Breaking Character

In Ellen's blog post, she says that "Deadpan is ineffective when we neither find the content of the joke funny or the person delivering it." I had never thought about the components of deadpan humor before, but upon reading this statement it made sense. Deadpan is a type of humor that requires careful execution - it takes innate talent to make a deadpan statement on the spot and get laughs. I think successfully delivering deadpan comes down to two things: sensitivity and confidence. These may sound like contradictory ideas, polar opposites even - but they are both necessary for achieving the goal of laughter. 

Jokes should be jolting, provoking a strong opinion or emotional response. We already know that discomfort can create humor, but there is a line. The line varies depending on an endless amount of factors - including the people in your target audience, the mood of the current moment, and your capacity to deliver the joke. These are just a few things to consider when deciding if a joke is too harsh. But with this sensitivity to the environment, the joke must also be delivered with confidence. The audience will take cues from the attitude of the comic, so if deadpan humor is attempted timidly, the response won't translate. Deadpan is an art that not everyone can master, but breaking character most definitely is.

Ellen asked whether successful deadpan or breaking in the midst of attempting deadpan generates more laughter. I think the answer is easily the latter, but if the question was which generates more meaningful laughter, I would say the former. Deadpan requires a thought process, even if it is not consciously realized. Breaking is something that comes easily to everyone, therefore the response does not require any effort. I guess what I'm saying is, laughing at someone else's laughter is dumb humor. It never fails. This is why Jimmy Fallon has grown to rely on it. I think that his comedy does have more layers to it, but he has found through experience that when all else fails, his laughter causes others to laugh. But now people see that he tries to force this experience, which comes off as inauthentic. Authenticity is the key to any type of humor, whether it be deadpan, satire, parody, or even breaking. Laughter is ultimately a natural response to the unexpected, and the unexpected can never be planned.