Comedyblog

This is my response to Elizabeth's lead blog. First of all, I thought that the video was a great example of the use of exaggeration in comedy. That is, the exaggeration creates an incongruity which, in turn, makes us laugh. Everyone as seen there parents behave in this frantic way trying to clean up for company before, but what makes it so funny is the extreme way the mom figure in this video does this. She uses statements such as "We can't let people know we live in this house," which are so hyperbolic that we can not take them seriously. So we have here an incongruity between something very familiar on the one hand, and bizarre statements that none of us encounter with any regularity on the other. We can also see superiority and relief theory at work in this case as well. The relief comes from the fact that cleaning for company is oftentimes a very stressful experience, but the fact that this particular scene is so unrealistic makes it relieving. In other words, ...

This is my response to McKenna's lead blog. In her blog, McKenna talks about SNL's Debbie Downer.  I think that the video is very funny and we can apply the comedy theories quite well to it. Perhaps the theory which applies most clearly to the video is incongruity theory. First of all, by the fact that  Debbie Downer is talking about all the terrible things that could happen at Disney World, there is an incongruity between the typically carefree and joyous experience of Disney World and the terrible things that Debbie Downer is talking about. Of course, Benign Violation theory applies to the video as well. When people go to Disney World, we typically don't talk about all the terrible thing that could(at least theoretically) happen; this is because there is a social norm which dictates that we not discuss topics at an amusement park that are considered too heavy or too dark. It would ruin the light and fun mood that we typically associate with Disney. Debbie breaks this n...

This is my response to Lauren's lead blog. Lauren points out that in the video she posted, we see both the relief theory and exaggeration at work. This seems to be obviously true, so I would like to point out how some of the ways exaggeration fits into the theories of comedy. First of all, it seems very easy to see how exaggeration fits into the superiority theory. After all, exaggeration makes it very easy to highlight faults. That is, it amplifies a certain foible or oddity so that it appears to be something ridiculous. Because of this we have sense of superiority over and above the person who has these foibles or oddities. Secondly, it seems that relief theory is able to accommodate exaggeration as well. For example, by exaggerating a foible about something we might typically look at as scary, it becomes less scary. Zombies are typically pretty disturbing creatures, but if we exaggerate the zombie's slow movements to the extent that one can just walk circles around a...

This is my response to Anna Kathleen's lead blog post. Anna Kathleen's post centered around the distinction between something's being "funny," and something's being "comedy." According to Anna Kathleen, comedy is a subset of that which is funny. That is, something that is comedy can be funny,  but not all things that are funny are comedy. Something which is funny is simply an thing or event which causes laughter. This can be in nearly any context in everyday life. What sets comedy apart from everyday funny things is the fact that comedy is institutional. That is, when something is designed primarily to make larger groups of people laugh (such as a standup routine or a movie) then it is comedy. I believe the distinction of the comedic from the funny is, in the main, perfectly correct. I also find that whether something makes us laugh or not is often dependent on whether it occurs in everyday life or in comedy. Oftentimes, we find ourselves must...