These two video clips were hilarious. Afterward, I was definitely intrigued by why I found myself laughing so hard. I completely understand your arguments and find them compelling, but, especially for the first clip, I think you missed a large part of incongruity theory that could explain what made these readings so funny.
Obviously, the graphics and the voice in the back made it a lot funny since it was a lot more dramatic, and someone laughing in the background makes the audience laugh more since laughter is contagious. I think the main part of the argument you missed though was not giving the incongruity theory enough of a chance to explain the first video.
The incongruity theory seems to have a straight forward definition, but there are a lot of instances where the incongruity theory can be expanded upon a lot more than you may realize. For instance, in the first video, I think part of the reason the clip was so funny was the huge gap between grammar education and sexual development. All of these people were talking about either sex, being pregnant, or both. The mere idea of this in itself is hilarious. If you stop to think about how old you have to be to become pregnant or even be aware of the notion of sex, the idea that these people writing these posts cannot even spell this mature idea is hilarious.
This is also incredibly incongruous because normally, in each of our mental sets, or at least in mine, one would think that a person would be able to spell pregnant before they were actually worried about pregnancy!
For the second video, I think you had some great explanations, so I do not have much to expand upon with that one. I thought it was mainly funny considering the idea that these random and seemingly obvious things could be overlooked and need to be corrected in the first place, which I think you mentioned.
Thanks for sharing!
Monday, September 30, 2019
Monday, September 23, 2019
Response to jack's blog 9/23
This was a great choice for a funny clip. It definitely made me laugh. I like your interpretations of the different comedic elements, but I also wanted to look into some different theories and how they could explain the comedy behind this clip. Specifically, the benign-violation theory could really apply to this clip and explaining the comedic elements behind it.
When looking at why this clip was funny, I immediately started thinking about how it was a violation since the substitute teacher was messing up (or violating) the correct pronunciation of the students' names. It was hilarious, however, because it was completely benign. I love this explanation because it explains perfectly why these violations were funny because they were so obviously harmless to the students.
The arguments between the student and the substitute were also hilarious because you would not normally expect students to argue with teachers because it is generally considered disrespectful. I would classify this as an example of the incongruity since this is unexpected and not in the norm; it could also fit under the benign-violation theory.
Furthermore, I really like the incongruity theory's explanation because the pronunciation of these names was completely unexpected because most of us had never heard these names pronounced this way before.
All in all, I really like this video clip because I think it is a clear example of how multiple theories can be applied to one situation and how they can overlap. I really think all four theories we have discussed can be somehow applied to this theory. Thanks for sharing!
When looking at why this clip was funny, I immediately started thinking about how it was a violation since the substitute teacher was messing up (or violating) the correct pronunciation of the students' names. It was hilarious, however, because it was completely benign. I love this explanation because it explains perfectly why these violations were funny because they were so obviously harmless to the students.
The arguments between the student and the substitute were also hilarious because you would not normally expect students to argue with teachers because it is generally considered disrespectful. I would classify this as an example of the incongruity since this is unexpected and not in the norm; it could also fit under the benign-violation theory.
Furthermore, I really like the incongruity theory's explanation because the pronunciation of these names was completely unexpected because most of us had never heard these names pronounced this way before.
All in all, I really like this video clip because I think it is a clear example of how multiple theories can be applied to one situation and how they can overlap. I really think all four theories we have discussed can be somehow applied to this theory. Thanks for sharing!
Sunday, September 15, 2019
Response to john's blog 9/15
I really liked your interpretation of the video; I thought it was super accurate how you talked about the different tones used and how they affected the interpretation of the events and what was being said. However, I really hated the video. I found myself really uncomfortable and cringing the whole time, and there was no conclusion at the end, so my feelings were never resolved! I was not sure whether the video you chose was supposed to be funny or if you were just trying to show how tone could relate to how different sentences are perceived. If the video was not supposed to be funny, then how does this relate to comedy? I think it could potentially relate because depending on the tone of a joke, the joke could be perceived as sarcastic, offensive, or funny. All of these are completely different feelings to evoke in an audience which is crazy to think that tone could change so much.
Furthermore, this video made me think of the benign-violation theory. The judge said some very harsh criticisms to the contestant which could be seen as the "violation," and if at the end of the video, the contestant won or the judge confirmed that his dish was good it would have been funnier because the criticisms would be "benign," but I could not tell if the criticism were benign or criticisms in the end which just left me confused and not laughing.
In conclusion, I think this video and your interpretation of it left me with more questions than answers. Not in a bad way, it just really got me thinking, which I guess is a good thing! Thanks for sharing, and everyone comment what you think if you have comments relating to some of my questions and confusions.
Furthermore, this video made me think of the benign-violation theory. The judge said some very harsh criticisms to the contestant which could be seen as the "violation," and if at the end of the video, the contestant won or the judge confirmed that his dish was good it would have been funnier because the criticisms would be "benign," but I could not tell if the criticism were benign or criticisms in the end which just left me confused and not laughing.
In conclusion, I think this video and your interpretation of it left me with more questions than answers. Not in a bad way, it just really got me thinking, which I guess is a good thing! Thanks for sharing, and everyone comment what you think if you have comments relating to some of my questions and confusions.
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Lead Blog 8/5
Hey everyone welcome to my blog! This one is sure to make you laugh, and in this blog, we are going to work on finding out exactly why that is. For our first adventure, we are going to look at a scene from the famous TV show The Office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO8N3L_aERg
Overall, everyone must admit you laughed at least once during that scene and definitely not for just one reason. All the different characters contribute to the comedic elements in multiple different ways. Let's look at the three theories and see how they each play into this fast-paced scene!
First, when looking at the incongruity theory, Dwight definitely served as the highlight of the comedic outlet. Dwight is a normally tame, rule follower which is obvious even in this scene as a whole, but there are definitely parts where he strays from his norm which backfires tremendously and in all the best ways. To start off, Dwight starts an actual fire! Furthermore, he does so by smoking a cigarette which is very bad and against his usual character. He then furthers this incongruity by saying that smoking is going to save lives, while the traditional saying says that smoking kills. In summarizing and looking at the scene as a whole, the funniest aspect is how bad it all ended. As a result of him trying to teach everyone through experience, he only made things worse and caused immense damage to the office. The incongruity between what he wanted to happen and what actually happened is hilarious to watch as his coworkers react in crazy ways to his fake fire.
Leading off of this, for the relief theory, the coworkers exemplify this theory the most. I will start by saying that all of the following examples could also fit under the incongruity theory given the context of the scene, but they also fit under relief, so I wanted to provide some examples of this theory as well. For starters, the relief in this scene is used in a way to cut the seriousness of there being a fire in the office. Angela is scrambling to get out of the office and the first thing she goes to save is not herself or her coworkers but her cat?? Kevin goes into the break room which would normally seem like a place someone would go to try and find an exit, but instead, he chooses to frantically break into the snack machine in order to get free food. These examples employ relief theory because in these moments when the coworkers feel as if they are in a life or death situation, all restraint is removed, and they do things that would not normally be societally accepted like breaking open a vending machine or throwing a cat into the ceiling.
Lastly, the superiority theory is used in the scene as a whole. The mere fact that the whole time I am sure you were saying in your head: "Wow this is so stupid. This would never happen to me. They are such idiots," shows how the superiority theory comes into play which makes the scene all the more hilarious. Also, when Andy says, "the fire's shooting at us," when Dwight lights some firecrackers which is just hilariously false also demonstrates some superiority theory when the audience begins to think oh I would never mistake firecrackers as someone shooting at me; wow that is so stupid.
Overall, this scene of The Office is a great example to use when examining comedy because it employs all the different types of comedy which is also probably why it reaches so many people and is so funny! Thanks for tuning into my blog; I cannot wait to see what you all have to say!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO8N3L_aERg
Overall, everyone must admit you laughed at least once during that scene and definitely not for just one reason. All the different characters contribute to the comedic elements in multiple different ways. Let's look at the three theories and see how they each play into this fast-paced scene!
First, when looking at the incongruity theory, Dwight definitely served as the highlight of the comedic outlet. Dwight is a normally tame, rule follower which is obvious even in this scene as a whole, but there are definitely parts where he strays from his norm which backfires tremendously and in all the best ways. To start off, Dwight starts an actual fire! Furthermore, he does so by smoking a cigarette which is very bad and against his usual character. He then furthers this incongruity by saying that smoking is going to save lives, while the traditional saying says that smoking kills. In summarizing and looking at the scene as a whole, the funniest aspect is how bad it all ended. As a result of him trying to teach everyone through experience, he only made things worse and caused immense damage to the office. The incongruity between what he wanted to happen and what actually happened is hilarious to watch as his coworkers react in crazy ways to his fake fire.
Leading off of this, for the relief theory, the coworkers exemplify this theory the most. I will start by saying that all of the following examples could also fit under the incongruity theory given the context of the scene, but they also fit under relief, so I wanted to provide some examples of this theory as well. For starters, the relief in this scene is used in a way to cut the seriousness of there being a fire in the office. Angela is scrambling to get out of the office and the first thing she goes to save is not herself or her coworkers but her cat?? Kevin goes into the break room which would normally seem like a place someone would go to try and find an exit, but instead, he chooses to frantically break into the snack machine in order to get free food. These examples employ relief theory because in these moments when the coworkers feel as if they are in a life or death situation, all restraint is removed, and they do things that would not normally be societally accepted like breaking open a vending machine or throwing a cat into the ceiling.
Lastly, the superiority theory is used in the scene as a whole. The mere fact that the whole time I am sure you were saying in your head: "Wow this is so stupid. This would never happen to me. They are such idiots," shows how the superiority theory comes into play which makes the scene all the more hilarious. Also, when Andy says, "the fire's shooting at us," when Dwight lights some firecrackers which is just hilariously false also demonstrates some superiority theory when the audience begins to think oh I would never mistake firecrackers as someone shooting at me; wow that is so stupid.
Overall, this scene of The Office is a great example to use when examining comedy because it employs all the different types of comedy which is also probably why it reaches so many people and is so funny! Thanks for tuning into my blog; I cannot wait to see what you all have to say!
Monday, September 2, 2019
Lippitt blog 9/2
I found Schopenhauer's formulation the most persuasive. I related to the examples used, and I found the description of the incongruity theory easy to understand. It helped me get a better grasp of the theory and what it all entails. Another example of comedy that illustrates the incongruity theory the way Schopenhauer's formulation is in the show How I Met Your Mother. In a scene, the show exaggerates the lack of suit selection Ted has by contrasting it with another main character's suit selection. The other character, Barney, has hundreds of suits, a lot of which are the same color with slightly different detailing, but Ted can never find a nice suit when Barney tells him to suit up.
The different theories of comedy do describe different types of comedy. Some types of comedy overlap using more than one theory, but overall, the theories are not the same, and they do not evoke the same emotions as the others. I do not think one gets closer to the essence. I think they all serve different purposes. Not all examples of the different theories are funny because they may not be relatable to the audience or they may not be delivered with the right tone. It also depends on the effectiveness of the joke and how it is perceived by the type of audience it is presented to. For example, in order for an incongruence joke to be funny, the audience must perceive the two things being compared in the joke as abnormal or opposite.
The different theories of comedy do describe different types of comedy. Some types of comedy overlap using more than one theory, but overall, the theories are not the same, and they do not evoke the same emotions as the others. I do not think one gets closer to the essence. I think they all serve different purposes. Not all examples of the different theories are funny because they may not be relatable to the audience or they may not be delivered with the right tone. It also depends on the effectiveness of the joke and how it is perceived by the type of audience it is presented to. For example, in order for an incongruence joke to be funny, the audience must perceive the two things being compared in the joke as abnormal or opposite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)