lol

I'm sure everyone has experienced that social feux pas of blurting out what you think is going to be a hilarious joke...and no one laughs. In fact, people start awkwardly shuffling, coughing, pretending they didn't hear what you said. Someone asks, "did you really just say that?" Now, you have to justify your sense of humor, but the fact that you have to do ruins any chance that your joke will click with your audience. In the end, you decide it would be best to never talk again. It happens. Although the existence of humor, according to Critchley, is universal and timeless, types of humor are certainly not. While many individuals found Borat to be a hoot, I don't think a group of nuns would agree. Maybe they would. And that would be funny.

Arthur, staring Dudley Moore, is somewhat of a corny comedy. A rich alcoholic is told to marry this chick who will supposedly whip him into shape, but, alas, he falls in love with another, poor girl. Imagine Russell Brand playing the role of Arthur (which he does in the remake) and you'll understand the type of humor. Essentially, it's borderline offensive. Conservative viewers might even go so far as to use the word tasteless. While for some people, this sort of crass humor might elicit that "natural explosion" which Critchley goes into much depth about, for others, nothing happens. Instead, in some instances of crude humor, rage, embarrassment, or other emotions exist.

Generally, people surround themselves with people who, amongst other things, find the same things funny. As Critchley says, "a sense of humor is often what is felt to be best shared with people who are from the same place as us". In order to know that guidos and people from the Jersey Shore are funny, you have to be aware of what culture and society is both broadcasting and making fun of. In order to do so, you have to be interested in it, or at least interested in the critique of it. I coach a team of middle schoolers, and they'll make a joke about something middle schoolers joke about which I am completely ignorant (thank god) of. That ignorance clearly separates me from them and bonds them together. Critchley compares the sharing of jokes to a communal prayer, which I believe to be a very good analogy.

So, back to where I started, what is happening when you make an offensive or--worse--unfunny joke? You're expecting to elicit a laugh, at least a chuckle. Further, you're attempting to connect with your audience. Even further...for most people, I guess, you're attempting to prove yourself. First, you're trying to prove that you actually are funny, because it's an admirable trait. Second, it shows that you're aware--either of yourself, of the world, society, etc. That awareness, the ability to read what's around you and transform it into humor is something that is cherished in our society. While we might laugh at the character Arthur for being a silly drunk, he makes really smart jokes which we find to be cheeky and funny. The serious, or "unfunny" characters in the movie don't have the same ability to say something smart after someone (unintentionally) sets them up for the possibility of a joke.


Of course, when you hear a joke that makes you laugh, rarely will you be thinking, "I am laughing at this because this individual has touched upon several aspects of society and has critiqued it in a manner which is humorous because X). And the fact that that doesn't happen makes humor and humorous individuals so cherished.

French Themed or Fight Club: Appearance vs. Content in Bridesmaids

For this week I watched Bridesmaids (2011), which is surprisingly one of my favorite recently made films.  This was about the sixth or seventh time I have seen it, but I never thought I would be watching it for a philosophy class.  Marketed as “the female version of The Hangover,” Bridesmaids follows Annie (Kristen Wiig), a single woman and former owner of a bakery who is asked to be the Maid of Honor for her newly engaged best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph).  Along with the other bridesmaids, Rita (Wendi McLendon-Covey), Becca (Ellie Kemper), Megan (Melissa McCarthy), and Helen (Rose Byrne), Annie and Lillian take part in typical pre-wedding situations, such as picking dresses, the bachelorette party, and the bridal shower.  However, the constant competition between Annie and the wealthy perfectionist Helen, as well as the issues in Annie’s relationship life, lead to disastrous and humorous results at each event.

            I remember being quite apprehensive before the first time I saw Bridesmaids because at first glance it looked a little too “Sex and the City” and I’m not generally a huge fan of romantic-comedy.  However, I found it to be an extremely entertaining and well-written film, almost having more in common with films of the “gross-out” genre, such as Animal House or Superbad, than it did with romantic comedy films.  I think the idea that the appearance of the film is different than the content is one of the reasons why I find Bridesmaids so successful as a comedy.  The film contains lots of bright colors, and because it is about a wedding, there is also a lot of white to create a sense of purity.  However, the unique personalities of each of the bridesmaids add a raunchy, unexpected element to a typically refined situation.  The one line that leaves me in tears every time is when the bridesmaids are discussing a theme for the bridal shower in a Brazilian restaurant while Lillian is in the bathroom.  While throwing out ideas, Annie suggests a French theme to which all the women (except Helen) seem excited about.  Megan then responds, “I’m just going to snowball off of that and suggest Fight Club.”  A bridal shower where guests beat each other to the ground is a ridiculous suggestion, but Megan treats it very similar to the French theme. 

            I find the effectiveness of this joke, as well as the appearance vs. content distinction present throughout Bridesmaids, very similar to the incongruity theory of humor that Simon Critchley discusses in On Humour.  In this theory, Critchley says that, “humour is produced by the experience of a felt incongruity between what we know or expect to be the case, and what actually takes place in the joke, gag, jest or blague.” (Critchley 3).  Another example of this in Bridesmaids is the infamous dress shop scene, which is by far the most shocking scene in the film.  The women go to a very chic, pretentious bridal shop, and they can only get in because of Helen’s influence.  The entire shop is white and every dress they try on is outrageously expensive.  However, everyone except for Helen is struck with food poisoning for the Brazilian restaurant, resulting in Rita and Becca vomiting on each other in the bathroom and Megan being forced to use the sink.  Wearing a beautiful French wedding dress, Lillian tries to dash to a gas station but can only make it halfway across the street before disaster strikes, much to the dismay of the bridal shop owners.

            While this scene is indicative of the unexpected crudity in typically refined situations that runs rampant throughout Bridesmaids, this scene also relates to Critchley’s discussion of the body as a tool for humor.  Critchley argues that what makes us laugh is “the return of the physical into the metaphysical.”  In reference to scatological humor, the type of humor utilized in the bridal shop scene and the crudest expression of bodily humor, Critchley says that the “distinction between the metaphysical and the physical is explored in the gap between our souls and arseholes.” (Critchley 44).  Critchley relates this brand of humor back to a discussion of animality, and how the very direct physicality that allows us to think of ourselves as having a body instead of being a body is what makes us laugh during these scenes.  In Bridesmaids, the fact that the characters are in such a stereotypically pretentious, refined situation makes the scatological humor that much more effective and shocking for the audience.  I find Bridesmaids to be a very unique and entertaining take on the “gross-out” genre and it also contains clever writing and strong comic acting.  I would definitely recommend it.       

I'm sick and tired of these motherf@#n jokes on this motherf@#n plane! Not...

The movie Airplane is hysterical.  I had heard many good things about it, but did not have a good opportunity to watch it until now.  I do not regret this decision at all.  Sometimes with humor I find movies trying to overdo the jokes and it is not that funny.  However, Airplane strikes comedic gold, in part due to many of the reasons that Critchley lays out in his On Humor.  I think that the most important connection that Critchley makes to Airplane is the key to a joke and its situation.

In On Humor, Critchley talks about how a situation is key to the success of a joke.  A good joke not only, “shows the sheer contingency or arbitrariness of the social rites in which we engage,” but also, “humor can change the situation in which we find ourselves, and can even have a critical function with respect to society” (10).  Critchley later goes on to suggest that some jokes, in their situations, can critique society and others can merely point it out as obvious and there.  There are many jokes in Airplane, but the joke of the religious zealots and the joke with Kareem Abdul-Jabaar represent the two different kinds of situational jokes.

            One major joke that the movie makes immediately apparent is the annoying atmosphere of airports.  I am going to assume that there are very few people in the world that actually enjoy spending time in airports, regardless of cool shops, restaurants, etc.  Well one of the first jabs at the situation of Airplane is the vast amount of religious zealots pestering people to take their flowers for their church.  The main character, Ted Striker (played by Robert Hays), leaves his taximeter running – a joke about taxi drivers – and runs into the airport looking for his girlfriend.  One of the members of the church tries to pin the flower to his jacket.  Instead of trying to refuse the flower, Striker manages to slip of his jacket and hand it to the zealot. 

Later on, Rex Cramer (played by Robert Stack) is in a rush to the airport and has to literally fight his way through 10 religious zealots.  The fighting is the attempt to bring in a little slapstick comedy, which in this case, is pretty funny.  I think the joke about the religious zealots is funny only because it describes a real situation.  The slapstick comedy works here because people usually are in a rush at airports and generally want to fight people who get in the way.  Ted Striker leaves his jacket in the hands of the zealot because, like most people, he would rather give away that piece of clothing than have to deal with those pestering people in airports.  This joke is representative of a critical joke on society.  It is, of course, not a very serious critique, but people do often feel harassed at airports and would generally prefer not having to deal with distractions while trying to make a flight.

The next joke that is really tied to its situation is that of the pilot Roger Murdock… as Kareem Abdul-Jabaar… played by Kareem Abdul-Jabaar.  If you do not know whom Kareem is, shame on you.  Just kidding, but really he is the all-time leading scorer in NBA history and generally a famous individual all-around.  If you do know who he is already, the joke becomes immediately obvious and causes a casual chuckle.  For those that do not know who he is, his being 7’2 and having a large Afro makes him stick out, but the movie also clarifies the joke by having him argue with a little kid.  The kid recognizes Murdock as Kareem and begins to talk about how the kid’s dad thinks that Kareem is lazy and does not play enough defense – a situational joke about star players not playing 100% all the time.  This clarification is necessary for those who do not know who he is to get the full impact of the joke.  Otherwise the audience would be stuck without a context for the joke and it would strike them simply as odd to see a 7’2 man trying to work in a cockpit.  Unlike the religious zealots joke, Kareem offers a joke that revolves on him just being him in an odd and funny situation.

There are many many many more hilarious jokes in Airplane.  The jokes about the Zealots and Kareem Abdul-Jabaar may not actually be the funniest jokes in the movie.  However, they demonstrate the importance of the situation and context of jokes and the difference between a critical joke and the highlighting of an oddity.  I am sorry to those of you who have not seen this movie and I have now ruined two pretty funny jokes in the movie, because as Critchley says, and we all know from experience, a joke is ruined once it is explained.  Nonetheless I hope you do not wait any longer like I did many a time, and you watch the movie ASAP.

Monty Python and Incongruity

      Monty Python and The Holy Grail is undoubtably a classic movie, probably the most famous installment of all of Monty Python series. If you have not seen it, shame on you, for the movie is an excellent example of humor, specifically a British humor. The film is not really a cohesive story with a classic ending, but more like a loosely tied together series of sketches about medieval knights and King Arthur going on ridiculous adventures. 

       In general, Monty Python plays heavily on incongruity for the source of it’s humor.  The whole movie sets up a situation and characters that many people are familiar with. King Arthur is an extremely famous figure and everyone has heard stories about medieval knights. Thus they have natural expectations about what will happen in the story. The movie plays on these expectations, setting up something that you think will happen and turning it on it’s head.

         Pinpointing the classic sketch from Monty Python and The Holy Grail is difficult at best. One of the most famous is the Black Knight Sketch, which goes along with the incongruity theory of humor extremely well. In the movie, there is a knight defending a bridge and refuses to let anyone cross. When King Arthur tries to pass him, he forces him to fight. As the fight progresses, King Arthur cuts off the Black Knight’s arm, which would normally signal a fight being over, especially considering the Knight is merely defending a bridge. However, the Black Knight ridiculously claims that “tis but a scratch” and “I’ve had worse”, which of course is completely impossible. The incongruity of his ridiculous attitude continues as he loses all his limbs but continues to not only to try to fight but trash-talk King Arthur. It is the ultimate version of not admitting defeat. If, as Critchley suggests, humor is supposed to teach us something, show us broader ideals about humanity, then maybe this scene shows us that there is always a time to give up. It show us the ridiculousness of the philosophy of “never giving up”. 

           Monty Python and the Holy Grail has many other scenes that build on this similar vein of humor. For example, the three questions scene gives a great depiction of the simple unfairness of life sometime in an example taken far over the top. To pass the wizard, the questers had to answer three questions correctly. Comically, the first two questions, instead of being difficult, were: what is your name? what is your quest? For the first asker, the third question was just as easy: what is your favorite color? The next knight approaches confidently, thinking that his passage will be just as easy. But instead, the third question is a useless piece of trivia so random that almost no one would know it off the top of their head. And for not knowing this piece of information, that knight died, unlucky to have gotten the bad question. Comically, the next person, now scared, responded that he “didn’t know” his favorite color, causing his demise as well. On a side note, the casual way that the knights deal with death and danger throughout the whole movie is a subtle source for amusement, for it also does not match up with how most people would react to the death and danger. 

           I agree with Critchley that good humor does not merely amuse us, it shows us things about people. I think this can be seen through all types of comedy, from stand-ups to jokes your friends tell around the dinner table. Like Critchley put so well, we make the everyday, ordinary life seem surreal and extraordinary through humor. It allows us to appreciate the little things in life more than perhaps we normally do. But I think one of the most important aspects is it’s communal value. For while you can watch a funny movie and laugh by yourself, it does not compare to the joy that someone gets when watching a movie or sharing a story with friends. Sharing humor multiplies it exponentially, making a humor a very social aspect of our lives. 

Humor at 20,000 Feet

Humor, as the reading points out, may be the most elusive forms of the human psyche to study and analyze. Growing up, my dad had a habit of saying “Humor is like a frog – once you dissect it, it's already dead.” The statement holds weight – as soon as one looks directly at humor, puts it under the microscope, it almost always disappears. How, then, can we study humor in an academic way? Movies may provide our best options.

Movies, and other pieces of humor-related art, capture humor in a way that can be experienced over and over. While some might find a joke or funny scene less comical after viewing it many times, the original source of mirth is still perfectly preserved, making movies an ideal place to study humor without the risk of it slipping away or altering itself while it is observed.

One of the most classic humor movies, Airplane, is a prime example of humor captured. The movie's humor is based on the absurd, the unexpected, and the classic disconnect between one character and another. Puns feature strongly in the movie, and at every turn creative use of juxtaposition creates a humor in scene that might otherwise seem normal.

One of the movie's most famous lines is as follows: A crewmember says to the pilot, “Surely you can't be serious.” The pilot replies, “Of course I'm serious – and don't call my Shirley.” The viewer begins the scene from the perspective of the crewmember, hearing the word “Surely” and seeing it spelled that way in their mind. However, the pilot's obvious misunderstanding of the homophone suddenly turns the perspective of the situation, and the humor lies in how the pilot has focused on an a seemingly irrelevant part of the sentence rather than the matter at hand. The pilot's comment also diffuses the serious tone of the situation. As the reading discusses, humor is considered by some philosophers (Freud included) to be nothing more than the pent-up release of emotion, an expression of relief. Indeed, humor can often ease tensions in certain situations.

Airplane also creates humor through juxtaposition, and does so quite well. Kareem Abdul Jabaar has a role in the movie, but many times it's difficult to tell if his role is a cameo or whether he's playing a character. Perhaps most humorously, many of the characters don't seem to recognize him as a professional basketball player (despite him being an obvious misfit). This suspension of disbelief from the the viewer's point of view is a source of humor commonly found in all types of comedy.

The movie also creates humor through use of reaffirming or toying with societal stereotypes, an entire genre of humor according to the reading. At many points gender roles are made fun of, and the tongue-in-cheek scenes involving over-sexualized characters are often the source of the movie's genius. However, the movie does a particularly good job of presenting these situations and types of jokes in an ironic fashion, and the humor is derived from acknowledging that such imbalanced discourses exist within our society. That said, only some small changes would be necessary for the humor to be based on reaffirming stereotypes (both ethnic and gender-related) in order to maintain the power discourse in our society as opposed to pointing out it's flaws. Humor in this sense is based on power, the reading notes, and many people have found it effective in preying on other's weaknesses or by using it as a tool to leverage themselves higher in the society that they happen to exist in.

Airplane also focuses on slapstick humor, or humor based on physical events. Slapstick humor has been a popular form of humor for centuries, and is often based on watching others in pain. However, slapstick humor can only work if the pain is moderate to light, otherwise the viewer begins to feel uncomfortable. However, the humor doesn't have to be solely based on pain to be considered slapstick. In airplane, one the most memorable scene results when the two main character are shown kissing romantically in the waves. During this seemingly perfect scene, instead of the waves lapping gently over them, a giant wave full of seaweed drenches them and ruins the moment. Not only does this occurrence add to the humor in the scene, but the scene also plays off of making a slight alteration to a commonly known scene. Because the beach make-out has been used in other movies in a serious sense, by parodying this situation through a slightly different outcome the scene becomes far funnier than if hadn't already been a known cultural icon. Often times, as the reading suggests, humor is found in taking an event or phrase usually presented in a serious fashion and changing it slightly to make it seem ridiculous and therefore play off of it's initial serious. The humor in the above scene, for instance, wouldn't work if the scene hadn't began as one that was intensely romantic and seemingly far from the realm of humor.

The Dude Abides, Darkly

The Big Lebowski (1998) is a classic example of the Coen brothers' characteristically dark sense of humor, depicting grim events in an almost flippant manner. “The Dude” (Jeff Bridges) shares a legal name with Jeffrey Lebowski (David Huddleston), thereby creating the perfect context for a comedy-of-errors. Lebowski sets itself apart from other simple situational comedies through the gravity and intensity of the situations contained therein. Simon Critchley does not specifically discuss dark humor in his book On Humour, but his three theories of humor are nonetheless pertinent to an in-depth examination of Lebowski. First, a quick summary of the three theories:

1. We laugh at others, out of feelings of superiority
2. Laughter is a release of nervous energy, or a response to an awkward situation
3. Humor arises from the difference between our expectations and what actually occurs

Lebowski includes all three theories in varying degrees. Audiences laugh at the characters themselves, as The Dude & Friends are messy, unemployed bowling-enthusiasts – a perfect recipe for creating feelings of superiority, it would seem. There is also a great deal of nervous laughter, especially with regard to Maude Lebowski (Julianne Moore) and her artwork. The same could be said for the scene with the ferret and the bathtub, depending on how uncomfortable small rodents on leashes make you. 

It is the third theory, though, which addresses the majority of Lebowski's humor. Critchley speaks mostly of jokes, where punch-lines depart significantly from their anticipated direction. He elaborates, saying that a “true joke, a comedian's joke, suddenly and explosively lets us see the familiar defamiliarized, the ordinary made extra- ordinary and the real rendered surreal” (10). In Lebowski, most of the situations themselves (with some obvious exceptions, of course) are more or less familiar to the viewer. We've seen kidnapping stories before; we've seen complex tales of mistaken identities (both good and less-good); we've likely even seen bowling fanatics before, though none with quite the panache of Jesus Quintana (John Turturro). It is the way that the Coen Brothers toy with our horizon of expectations that makes this movie a comedy.

I find it fascinating that this film, like most of the Brothers' dark comedies, could have easily tipped over into the realm of drama with just a few different stylistic or character-based alterations. Dark comedy is a hard genre to define, and it is an even harder genre to write within. Yet the Coens have still managed to master it. Consider the bare-bones plot: After a case of mistaken identity, which led to theft and assault in the home of an innocent man, that man becomes involved in a kidnapping scheme. When plans go awry, the alleged kidnappers send a severed body part to the abducted woman's husband as a threat. The summary could continue further, but I think you get the point. It sounds like a drama, yes? It even sounds like a bit of a horror thriller, with bloody toes being sent via USPS. Yet the disjunction between the grave situations and the various characters' outlandish (or not outlandish enough?) responses to their circumstances creates a comedic effect.

Critchley does touch on dark humor briefly, even referencing a Coen Brothers creation: “if there is a coldness at the core of the comic,” resulting from the distance from everyday life which comedy allows, “then this can also be disturbing... Consider the Coen Brothers' 1996 film, Fargo, where multiple murder is treated with a troubling numbness” (88). To be fair, Fargo leans more toward drama than Lebowski, but Critchley's comment is still applicable. The Dude is so casual in his treatment of the physical threat on both himself and the supposedly kidnapped woman, preferring to dwell on his ruined rug. He drinks White Russians and bemoans the loss of a decorative item. So yes, the plot is grim, but the characters are comedic. The same could be said for Fargo.

Does this “gallows humor” have a clear place in Critchley's compiled theories? Does it fit in one, or does it seem to combine all three? Or perhaps it marks a need for a fourth theory? For me, the humor of Lebowski is in large part due to the tension between the viewer's expectation and the film's “reality,” if you could call it that. We expect a reasonable, rational human being (though The Dude seemed to trade in reason and rationality for his unconventional title) to treat a violent situation with a bit more caution, but we delight in The Dude's buffoonery. It is a pleasant contradiction to our expectations. Is this true of all dark humor, though? Or just that of the Coen Brothers? 

The Humor of Superiority in The Big Lebowski

Critchley’s On Humor outlines three theories of humor. The longest-standing one is based upon the idea of superiority, where the audience feels themselves better than the characters being portrayed. This is the idea behind racial and sexist humor. Basically it is a humor that capitalizes on stereotypes and makes caricatures out of its characters. There appear to be several different studies of this superiority theory within the movie.

            The Dude is our protagonist, and the narrator speaks truthfully of him. He calls him the laziest man in Los Angeles, but also describes him as someone completely right for his time and place. He speaks of him as if he is a legend. And on the two instances the narrator and the Dude encounter each other the narrator treats him as an equal, or even as someone to be admired. So, the Dude is presented to the audience as an equal.

            Yet, within the movie, it is clear that the majority of the characters see the Dude as a complete loser. This is one of the functions of the Big Lebowski. When the two are introduced, Mr. Lebowski describes the Dude as society must see him. He is unemployed, not seeking employment, and is, as he puts it, “asking for a handout.” The chief of police in Malibu is our figure of societal authority and he makes his opinion of the Dude abundantly clear. He empties the pitiful contents of the Dude’s wallet and discovers his only form of identification is a Ralph’s frequent shopper card. The police chief then insults him and assaults him. In the next scene the cab driver throws the Dude out of his cab because he does not like the Eagles. The driver perceived himself as superior both in authority and music taste. A short while later we see a policeman laughing with superiority in the auto pound scene. Here the policeman, again an authority figure and our societal representative is demonstrating audience superiority.

            Walter’s character is very interesting because he is the character whose inane actions grant the audience a sense of superiority and elicit most of the movie’s laughs. But he is also the embodiment of audience superiority. At every turn, he is declaring himself better than those around him. He constantly cites ‘Nam as evidence of this. He believes he can both outsmart and physically overpower all of his adversaries. His perceived superiority appears ridiculous. In the words of the Dude, “I love ya, but sooner or later you’re gonna have to face the fact that you’re a goddamn moron.” He seems to be speaking for the entire audience here. The audience gets quite a few laughs from Walter’s belief in his superiority, but it is a parallel feeling of supremacy that prompts amusement.

            Interestingly, by the end of the movie Walter makes good on his claims. When the German nihlists return to demand payment, Walter overpowers the three of them singlehandedly. It’s clear that his original plan to grab one of them at the handoff and beat information out of them would have worked even though it seemed insane.

            The representations of the superiority theory in The Big Lebowski are designed to reveal the falsity of superiority. What is really funny about The Big Lebowski is the absurdity of superiority. Those characters who appear to us as believing themselves to be superior really just seem crazy. Walter is our overarching example whose function is to turn the idea of superiority inside out and then to do it again. There are also other smaller examples, one being Jesus. The bowler wears tight monochromatic bowling suits, lots of rings and a hairnet. His appearance is ridiculous and his bowling routine disturbing, and yet it is clear from his mannerisms and trash talking that he is confident in his supremacy. Walter’s dismissal of the man as a pervert is comical because it proves him a freak and establishes the audience’s superiority; it also reinforces Walter’s role as surrogate audience. In the same way, Mr. Lebowski is not the self-made millionaire he proclaims himself to be. In reality, he is an old cripple on allowance from his daughter. His claim to superiority is just as false as everyone else’s. 

            The Dude is the only character that never claims superiority, and in the end he is the most respectable character. The Big Lebowski utilizes the humor of superiority, but in doing so it highlight’s the construction of this kind of humor and thus holds a mirror to us, the audience and in the end forces us to laugh at ourselves.

The Film as a Joke

This is Spinal Tap is a mocumentary about a 1980’s band on tour, dealing with issues prevalent even to today’s musical industry. Where the credit for the film’s humor lies is mostly with the genre. The mocumentary formula works very similarly to how Critchley would describe one type of joke. The film, appearing as a documentary, aims to tell a true, familiar, and especially believable story, and within the story the fabric of the medium is often broken. Something not usual, excessive problems or unnatural reactions will allow the viewer to recognize a specific joke and… well… laugh, either at the characters or at the situation.

One of the films resonating jokes deals with the situation they find themselves in with their set for the song “Stonehenge.” When specifying the details of the size of the stones that are to descend during the song, Nigel (Christopher Guest), the main figurehead for the band, accidentally indicates inches instead of feet, producing some miniature stones. The situation in itself is somewhat a joke, but the punch line lies in their dealing with the situation. This builds tension, yet in a way we know that due to the nature of the film we are being told a joke. Mistakes like these may happen in the industry, keeping us still grounded in the “real world.” So to end the tension of the situation, instead of practically dealing with the small stones, they simply have two dwarves come out on stage and river dance around the small stones. Critchley would say “tension is created in the listener and I follow along willingly with the story that is being recounted. When the punch-line kicks in, and the little bubble of tension pops, I experience an affect that can be described as pleasure, and I laugh or just smile” creating this “phenomenology” of a joke.

Jokes like this one are seen constantly throughout the film; however, there are also more socially critical jokes at hand. At one point in the film, the band puts out an idea for an album cover being a man holding a leash attached to a woman crawling on all fours. The tension built in this scenario is not so much situational, but social. While the joke still follows the basic structure and phenomenology, the tension is released in an almost cynical way. When first being confronted about the image being sexist, Nigel replies “what’s wrong with being sexy?” Here we are not only laughing with relief in the situation’s tension bursting, but laughing at Nigel for having no educated outlook in the problems of sexism during the time. The joke definitely comments on views most likely held by bands of that time, but also can be carried into today’s music. In a similarly stupid manner, the band faces other problems such as racism in suggesting “the Black Album” as an album title. Other jokes rely heavily on sexuality and a masculine ideal for competition, even in terms of masculinity… as one member is stopped at a metal detector for having a cucumber wrapped in tinfoil in his pants.

Again, the genre is a perfect platform for joke telling, with interviews, clips, and cutaways. We, as viewers, really go along for the ride of jokes through story telling. “A guy walked into a bar” type scenarios are constantly being set up, where the outcome and punch line are completely up to the creativity of the writer and director of the film. This really makes the film a joke in itself. I’ve had people say, “I thought that movie was a real documentary” and ultimately say “until that one point when…” where the tension of buying into the story as reality is broken and you immediately lose any trust you may have had with the filmmaker. So this phenomenology as described by Critchley can be carried over to the film as a whole, bringing up some metaphysical ideas that could be written about in an entirely new post. Basically it just brings up thoughts about jokes within jokes as well as any ideas of the construct of perceived reality being broken due to the nature of any film with the genre “mocumentary.”

Overall, I would suggest the film as the humor is well constructed and at points pretty smart. There is almost a cult following of the film in that it ties a group of people together by its quirky sense of humor and jokes that resonate through the film and into real life.

"It's civil rights!"

I've heard "Bridesmaids" been referred to numerous times as "the girl version of the Hangover." Its female-dominated cast is funny, outrageous, and crude much like the men in "The Hangover"- which transforms what might be a typical, uncontroversial rom com into a movie that is much more striking (and humorous), and liberating for women.

"Bridesmaids" is a story centered on Annie's (Kristen Wiig) difficulties planning her best friend Lillian's (Maya Rudolph) wedding. Annie is at rock bottom in her life from the beginning of the film - her bakery went bankrupt and so did she, she shares her apartment with two creepily close siblings who read her diary, she's hooking up with a mega-douche, and Lillian seems to have a new best friend who is constantly challenging Annie's role as maid of honor. Things get even worse from there as she begins to feel more competition from the new friend, Helen Harris III, loses her jewelry store job for insulting a young girl looking to buy a "BFF" necklace (telling her to "have fun having a baby at her prom"), as well as her apartment, her mega-douche, and her best friend, all while trying to win back the actually nice guy she met.

"Bridesmaids" has all of the elements of a usual chick flick - there are chicks doing something typically associated with being female, which in this case is obviously being involved in a wedding. There's romance found and lost, then found again. But the way "Bridesmaids" differs from this equation is vital. These women swear, burp, rabble rouse, and even demolish a bridal shop with their food poisoning. They are not "ladylike." 

In his book On Humor, Simon Critchley argues that humor and comedy can serve a greater purpose than releasing nervous energy or acknowledging inferiors - it can be a liberation of an individual's wills and desires. Critchley states that, "what goes on in humor is a form of liberation or elevation that expresses something essential to...'the humanity of the human,'" and emphasizes the joke should work to change the situation that it occurs in. Furthering this argument, Critchley elaborates that, "the incongruities of humor both speak out of a massive congruence between joke structure and social structure, and speak against those structures by showing that they have no necessity."

Critchley explains that "the humanity of the human" can be explored through scatological humor (or as he coins it, "souls and arseholes"), as it reminds us of our constant state of both being a body and having a body, what he calls physical and metaphysical. We as human beings are unique in our ability to exercise mental capabilities that stretch beyond our current environment despite our physicality. Scatological humor allows us to acknowledge and laugh at the weirdness of our bodies.
"Bridesmaids" does depend on some scatological humor. One of the trademark scenes from "Bridesmaids," is when the crew gets food poisoning in a bridal shop and soils the place in a very graphic, albeit hilarious, way. Many people think this scene is hysterical, and many think it's disgusting. While it's certainly valid to find scatological humor in general to be foul, it's been said enough by a large amount of people that this scene is particularly gross or unfunny because they're female, and those gender roles need to go. This movie not only brought the comedic double-standard into the public sphere, but also showed that women are allowed to be crude, and can be funny while doing it. In this way, "Bridesmaids" succeeded in Critchley's goal of humor as liberation.
In addition to a fair amount of bodily functions, "Bridesmaids" offers a plethora of swear words, including the ultra-taboo and offensive "c-word", as well as sexual innuendos at a level which doesn't appear in any other "chick flick" or romantic comedy. "Bridesmaids"'s success at the box office and award shows (as well as in the hearts of millions), accomplishes what Critchley argues is the central mission of humor - to elevate and liberate. Hopefully thanks to Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, and their "stone-cold pack of weirdos", we'll be able to move past the scatological double-standard. "Bridesmaids," pushes the envelope and proves that yes, women can be just as crude as men, and just as funny while they're doing it. As far as this equality in scatological humor goes, I'm sure Annie would agree with me that "it's civil rights!"

Here's one of the funniest scenes from "Bridesmaids":

Humor Lebowski

The Big Lebowski is a 1998 comedy about several offbeat middle aged men trying to live average live, but who get mixed up in Debt issues due to the main character, Lebowski, getting mistaken for another Lebowski and targeted by debt collectors.  This movie is clearly a comedy, and is considered by many to be an extremely funny movie.  But what about it actually makes it funny?  Humor is something that we can recognize easily, but is much harder to describe.

To answer this question, philosophers came up with various criteria of what constitutes humor.  One such explanation is the incongruity theory in which humor arises from the difference between the expected and what actually happens, as well as the distance between the two.  This can be seen as a major driving force in The Big Lebowski, especially because the very premise is based around Lebowski being targeted while really not having done anything to deserve his treatment.  For example, Lebowski is just a guy who likes to lounge around in his robe and drink white russians, but then random people show up to his house, beat the crap out of him, and hold his head underwater in the toilet.  The incongruity between Lebowski "the dude's" lifestyle and his collectors is what creates the humor.

Another theory about what makes up humor is that it is based off of a superiority complex that the viewer gets over the characters.  This is even more readily apparent in The Big Lebowski, because the main character and his friends are all pretty messed up in their own way.  Lebowski himself is just kind of a bum, and his friend has anger issues.  The other characters, too, are stricken with vice, and so while watching the movie the viewer can bask in a superiority complex over every character, and laugh at the absurd situations that stem from the character's lack of integrity.

But these are just theories, because humor is really not something we can clarify like words.  Unlike most things we experience, it doesn't follow any sort of real logic, and so we must resort to more abstract ideas to get a reading on it.  If you look though, there are patterns that can be gleaned from what we find funny or not funny, and so generalizations leave us still quite confident we know the basics of what's behind humor.

The Humor of Caddyshack

Caddyshack, the slapstick comedy revolving around a golf course and the rivalry between the owner, Judge Smails, and the eccentric guest, Al, played by Rodney Dangerfield, merges perfect two of  the three theories of humor presented by Critchley. The two theories merged are those of the ancient theory of superiority humor, and that of the incongruity theory.

            The first theory, that of the superiority theory, proposed by philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Hobbes, states that we find humor in our feelings of superiority over other people. We find humor in the “suddaine Glory arising from suddaine Conception of some Eminency in our selves, by Comparison with the Infirmityes of others, or with our owne formerly.” In Caddyshack, this is achieved in a number of ways. First, through Rodney Dangerfield’s character. In his character, we can reflect not only on how civil we are and his antics make us feel like we are better than him, but also through a more unique way. When Al interacts with the owner of Bushwood, his antics, though goofy and seemingly inferior to the self-absorbed “superior” judge, the difference between the two make us reflect upon our own character and see how we are superior to both, even though we relate more with Al. Through the character of Al, we get the feeling of superiority, and within his interactions and challenges of Bushwood’s owner, we get this feeling even more and the humor within it.
            The second theory of humor utilized in Caddyshack is the incongruity theory. As Lowell wrote on this idea, “Humor in its first analysis is a perception of the incongruous.” That is, to say, when an experience of felt incongruity between what we know or expect to be the case, and the actual outcome of the joke. In Caddyshack, this is the main operator of humor, whether it be Al’s antics or that of the battle between the gopher and the groundskeeper, or arguable the movie’s most famous scene, where one of the characters drops a BabyRuth candy bar in the pool. Everyone in the pool thinks it is not candy, but a piece of human excrement, and panic, and pandemonium breaks out. After this, the groundskeeper is cleaning the pool in a hazmat suit, and when he picks up the bar, sniffs it, and realizes it is a candy bar, takes a bite out of it. While this does not necessary cause the incongruity in the viewer, a club member is watching him do this, and thinking it is a piece of excrement, passes out when she sees him take a bite. It is this incongruity, between the club member’s expectations and reality, that causes the humor. Another example of this type of humor in Caddyshack is the final attempt of the groundskeeper (Bill Murray), to rid the golfcourse of the gopher that has been plaguing it. He rigs the gopher’s holes he has dug with dynamite, and ignites it. When he ignites it, the movie is at a pivotal moment in the golf match between the Bushwood owner and Dangerfield’s character, and the putt is on the edge of going in, and the explosions, while ruining the golf course, also cause the ball to fall in to the dismay of the owner. It is also this twist of unexpected outcomes that cause humor.

            Caddyshack, in it’s entirety, utilizes the superiority idea of humor, whether it be between the owner of Bushwood and his new troublesome member, or the caddies themselves, and the interactions they go through with the club members. The question I have, then, is whether or Caddyshack also uses the “relief theory” of humor. While it is true that it does cause laughter, is this laughter the release of pent-up nervous energy? From the very beginning, Caddyshack is not a stressful or nerve-racking film, so does it cause the necessary nervous energy or situation needed for the laughing to be a release of this type of energy, or does the nature of the film itself prevent this from happening?