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.