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the sitcom format will always be a classic and beloved part of American television history, it has inevitably become outdated.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.

Lead Blog Post: Comedy Within the Global Village

With social media, every individual has the power to create the next viral sensation. Often, a viral phenomenon starts as something unintentional - for example, Drake had no idea that his dancing in the Hotline Bling video would become a meme:

This grandpa just wanted a nice dinner with his grandkids, not to get thousands of retweets:

Skai Jackson was just posing for a nice photo, she wasn’t trying to become an overused reaction picture:

Viral sensations often make the world feel strangely connected - which is a notion that was around even before the dawn of the social media age.

Marshal McLuhan was a prominent scholar in the 20th century, whose theories were extremely ahead of his time. He coined the term  “global village” before the Internet had even come into existence. This phrase basically means that through modern communication, the world has actually seemed to become smaller. He elaborates in the following quote:

 “Like primitive, we now live in a global village of our own making, a simultaneous happening. It doesn't necessarily mean harmony and peace and quiet but it does mean huge involvement in everybody else's affairs.”

He is essentially saying that advancement in technology has actually caused us to regress back to a primitive state, in certain ways. The digital age has enabled things to spread rapidly, giving us a sense of immediacy and connection to people across the world, regardless of their socioeconomic status. This global village can be a great thing - it gives people from every walk of life a common thing to bond over and laugh about. But in some cases, it can bring out the darkest parts of human nature - such as the Sharkeisha video discussed last week. Additionally, the global village can humanize those who have achieved celebrity status - The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon does this quite often.

I personally love The Tonight Show, but they have fallen into a formula of comedy for the sake of going viral - often by playing bizarre games with celebrity guests, such as catapulting watermelons at a giant target with Mark Wahlberg:

Or playing a game of Jell-O Shot Twister with Shaquille O'Neal:

People enjoy watching these videos because they humanize someone who otherwise is put on a pedestal. Seeing celebrities play these wacky games is likely funny because of the superiority theory, meaning that it brings famous people down onto the same level as ordinary people. However, the show recently got a lot of backlash for humanizing presidential candidate Donald Trump. Many people did not find it funny to ignore serious issues and instead mess up his hair:

Since The Tonight Show places emphasis on parody and lighthearted comedy, as opposed to the political satire seen from John Oliver and Stephen Colbert, hard-hitting questions should not have been expected. However, in the current tumultuous state of the presidential race, combined with all of the remarks made by Trump in the past, trying to show his "human side" was bound to cause controversy. Since we have been discussing political satire, it is interesting to see how this situation, which is basically the opposite of satire, sparked such a heated political debate.

Comedy, especially in this technological age, can make everyone appear equal with the common response of laughter. But perhaps we should also be mindful that the global village can distort reality, by making the world appear much smaller than it actually is.

Lead Blog Response: Sharkeisha, Shovel Girl and the Social-Permission Theory

Matt's blog post raised many interesting and compelling arguments to continue last week's discussion about desensitizing violence through Vine culture. In my last post, I talked about the "benign-violation theory" which stated that debasing of an individual or group is funny as long as we don't believe that the subject was harmed. However, the popularity of videos such as Sharkeisha and Shovel Girl beg to differ. In both cases, it is clear that these girls were seriously injured - so why do we laugh anyways? As Matt said, maybe it's the fact that we know that the subject continued on with their lives. However, we do not know this until after the initial blow. I think the relief theory is most fitting, because the build up to this climactic moment causes us to laugh when the moment finally occurs. Incongruity is also very fitting for the Sharkeisha video in particular, because of her very unusual name. As we already discussed in class (I'm late on this post), if the video would've starred a girl named Catherine, it most likely would not have grown into the phenomenon that it has become. This also leads to another thing we discussed - how this video encourages racial and gender stereotypes. Sharkeisha is not even her real name, but it sounds "ghetto" and feeds into the societal tendency to stereotype women of color as violent and belligerent. Anyone with decent common sense and awareness knows that this is a ridiculous notion, yet it is stereotypes such as these that continue to hinder our societal growth. I personally do not gravitate towards Vine humor, especially this type of video which involves senseless fighting. However, I see how these videos could evoke a humorous reaction through a feeling of superiority, and also the repetitive nature of Vine causing the viewer to feel detached from the situation.

Lead Blog Response: Comedy vs. Seriousness

As we have learned, laughing at the expense of others' pain or suffering could very well be the epitome of comedy. Although there are types of humor that do not directly involve someone getting hurt, whether physically or emotionally, a good majority involves observing others in uncomfortable situations, or otherwise ridiculing them for something that makes observers feel superior. In the article "Waiting for the Conservative Jon Stewart", the "benign-violation theory" is briefly discussed. The term, coined by professor Peter McGraw, proposes that humor stems from degrading either an individual or a group, but it is only found funny by the audience if they know that the subject of the joke is not actually being harmed.

Now, this is not always the case, especially in YouTube/Vine culture. Most times, a funny video of a kid wiping out or an animal foolishly injuring itself are real occurrences. We may find these videos funny at first, but are usually hit with a feeling of guilt afterwards. However, this feeling quickly goes away, as we are becoming more and more desensitized from seeing these types of videos. I think that we have developed a sort of emotional disconnect, meaning, our mind doesn't fully register that this was initially a serious situation. We figure that since it has become a viral video, the subject in peril must have turned out to be okay. I think social media has made the line between what is funny and what is taking things too far even more difficult to distinguish.

In comedy films such as The Hangover, the audience expects to laugh. They know that the pain and suffering experienced by the characters is not real, therefore find it acceptable to find it humorous. In the movie, the kids laugh at Stu and Phil being tasered, but react with more shock when Alan becomes unable to move. If any of us watching were actually in the situation, we would probably react the same way, because we would worry that he wasn't okay. But after the cop tasers him again, he falls down and the tension is released.

Lead Blog Response: Rule of Three

When I binge-watched How I Met Your Mother a few years ago, I didn't pay much attention to the writing or the structure. Like many, I fell in love with the show for its likable characters and lighthearted storyline, although it did become more melodramatic in the later years. I think there are two types of people who have watched HIMYM: those who liked the ending and those who didn't. I have to admit that I was not a fan of the ending at all, but that's another conversation.

Regardless of my lingering bitterness, I can't deny that the show roped me in with its constant funniness - which at the time, I didn't realize was a result of a formulaic structure. Since then, I've become extremely interested in the not only the process of creating an entire script, but even the process of creating a single joke. Some jokes were undoubtedly spontaneous, probably the result of a random comment made at the writer's table. For example, I always wonder how the "slap bet" between Barney and Marshall was thought up - it's such a hilarious plot line that was carried out through multiple seasons. Also Barney's ducky tie, which he wore for a multitude of episodes after losing yet another bet. These intricacies are probably my favorite part of the show, because they make the dynamics between characters even more entertaining.

The writers of HIMYM did a good job at establishing character quirks early on, which audiences clung to and identified with. Barney is probably the most quotable character, and he most definitely uses the Rule of Three more than anyone else. I started watching the episode "Sorry Bro" after reading Jillian's blog post, and within the first five minutes I saw multiple uses of the Rule of Three. In the cold open, Robin walks into the bar at 1:45am, getting ready to go to work for her 4am newscast. Marshall asks who the fans are of a show that airs at 4 in the morning, and the Rule of Three plays out in the group's responses:

Lily: People getting up to host a show at 5 in the morning? (1)

Ted: Meth addicts who haven't sold their TVs yet? (2)

Barney: Strippers in that messy gray area between getting off work and getting their kids up for school? (3)

Like Jillian mentioned, the last line in the Rule of Three serves as the punch line, which Barney is always a pro at delivering. Another example I found was in a flashback with Karen, Ted's ex-girlfriend from college. Ted and Karen are obnoxiously making out on the top bunk while Marshall and Lily are playing cards on the floor. Ted narrates that he's unsure why his friends never liked Karen, but he thinks it's because of the things she says:

Karen: I love that you guys live in a dorm (1), it's so American (2). It's like, "let's all eat baloney sandwiches and be racist (3).

This is the first line Karen says in the show, establishing her role as the pretentious and self absorbed ex-girlfriend. Of course, Ted falls for her games again, because he's Ted.

The Rule of Three is a concept that seems to work in many different genres, but especially in comedy. Especially with a sitcom style show, writers rely on these formulas to generate content that is sure to get them continuous views and laughs. These days, the sitcom is becoming obsolete as new formats of comedy are becoming more prevalent. I think there is a fine line between having a formula that works, but also trying to push boundaries and create interesting content.

Comedy Theories: A Battle or Collaboration?

Trying to decipher which theory of comedy reigns supreme is like trying to choose between a hot fudge sundae and a triple chocolate brownie. This is an extremely simplified analogy, which might just be stemming from the fact that I'm hungry - but like any statement, it will make sense after some elaboration. As Zupančič states in the introduction of The Odd One In, the "irresistible motion" of comedy is the essence of what makes it so difficult to pin down and analyze. Not only are comedy, laughter and humor very broad and differing concepts, but the world in which they live in is evolving at all times. Deciding what is funny is endlessly subjective among entire cultures down to each individual. From Aristotle to Freud, every great mind has pondered the idea of what constitutes funniness and what creates the biological reaction of laughter. Every theory that has been extensively explored by scholars has validity, therefore there will never be one general consensus of the "best" explanation.

That being said, I can only provide my current subjective view on which theory makes the most sense, which will inevitably change with time and cultural exposure - much like the definition of comedy itself. Hobbes defends the superiority theory, saying that laughter arises “from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly”. Initially, I disagreed the most with this theory because although it is valid in certain cases, superiority did not seem like an instinctive reason to laugh. But upon further introspection, I realized that much of my comedic palette involves observing those in unfortunate or awkward situations, or more specifically, those who live unfortunate or awkward lives. Liz Lemon from 30 Rock is probably my favorite character in existence, and the core reason of why I find her funny is because she reflects certain aspects of myself. While her life is certainly a privileged one in every sense of the word, she is constantly hindered by her own personal afflictions and habits. The reason for my amusement comes from my feeling of superiority in that moment. Meaning, I have experienced similar situations in the past, but since I am not currently experiencing them, I feel superior. This correlates to Stott's idea of a "division of consciousness" present in comedy. In other words, we separate our egocentric view of the world and all other perspectives, making it easy to laugh at anything we are not currently experiencing.

Stott also proposes that “comedy is a force outside the guiding authority of reason that exerts a powerful anti-rational allure”. Sometimes it cannot be precisely explained why a certain observation strikes an individual as funny. The other day, I was looking at the shower-head and noticed there were three different settings: spray, massage and niagara - for some reason, I burst out laughing. My best explanation for why I found this funny would probably correlate with the incongruity theory. Thinking about the largeness of Niagara Falls in comparison to the tiny shower-head was comical. Also, perhaps my mood at that moment was a factor that played into it. Although this was certainly an example of incongruity, I think the funniness of it was amplified by the fact that I had a long day and felt stressed out. Perhaps the relief theory is also applicable here, given that I had built up negative energy that was released through finding something to laugh at. 

So - back to the sundae/brownie analogy. I think that the theories of comedy are all justified and incomparable, and sometimes they even compliment each other. One day I could be craving ice cream, while on another day a brownie could sound better. Or maybe I feel like having a hot fudge sundae on top of a brownie, that works too. I'm mostly going back to this analogy just because I promised I would in the beginning, but it also makes decent sense. Now I'm going to get a snack.

Submarine

Maya & Marty - Submarine

Maya & Marty is a new variety show on NBC starring the hilarious Saturday Night Live alumni, Maya Rudolph and Martin Short. The show had a brief and perplexing first season, which I think was a result of trying to find their identity as a series. Although there were many head-scratching moments during the show's initial season, there were a few extremely funny highlights. "Submarine" is a sketch satirizing the intensity of the war-movie genre.

The scene is set in the East Siberian Sea, aboard the USS Nuclear Submarine Mohegan. Alarms blare as a group of sailors talk frantically to one another, calling for their captain (Maya Rudolph). They inform her that the resistor switch is offline, which as a result could launch a plethora of nuclear weapons. One sailor (Mikey Day) speaks with confidence as he begins rattling off a long technical explanation, while the captain and other sailors listen hopefully. His voice escalates until he stops abruptly and says “Never mind.” This happens multiple times, while the crew grows more and more exasperated. Finally, the captain announces she is going on the outer hull of the submarine to manually fix the problem, sacrificing her life in the process. The deceptive sailor jumps in again, declaring that he will sacrifice his life instead. He says a dramatic goodbye, claiming that he is “just a kid from Indiana who's lucky enough to wear the uniform of the United States Navy.” The music swells as he makes a profound statement and the door closes. Not even a second later, he reemerges, saying, “Never mind, I'm scared.” Again, the captain interjects, announcing that she is trying the last resort - a re-pressurization. The engine whirs and the crew grows excited. The final shot shows the submarine rising up in the water, only to sink back down again. Emerged in darkness, the dejected captain says, “Aw. Never mind.”

Incongruity is undoubtedly the most fitting theory for this sketch. In the article “Theories of Humor”, Monro references a quote from Immanuel Kant, which states that humor stems “from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing.” This video presents the expectation of a stereotypical war movie, in which the hero suddenly discovers a solution to the major conflict. When the sailor seems to have an epiphany, the audience will likely assume the problem is about to be solved. It becomes humorous when he stops abruptly, admitting that he actually has no idea what he is talking about. The element of surprise is initially what made this funny, but as the scene goes on, the repetitiveness makes it even more humorous. The melodramatic nature of this situation, contrasted by the failure of each idea the sailor presents, is ultimately what made this sketch really funny to me.