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.