Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comedy boundaries.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Comedy boundaries.

    I didn't want to derail the "Current Viewing" thread, but I disagreed with a few comments there, so here I am.

    (The topic feels familiar... is there already a thread?)

    If something is funny, our first reaction is laughter. Our second reaction is usually quite different. But, we cannot blame ourselves for that. That's what laughter is. It's an instant reaction. You can't fake real laughter. You can "fake" it, but that doesn't count, because we know it's not real.

    We don't get a say in what makes us laugh. No matter what it is.

    Laughter is cruelty. There is always a butt of the joke. A victim. Someone to blame. (At this point I should mention Steven Wright, who is unique.)

    So when we realise what we just laughed at, and think, "oh wait a minute", we then think, "was that ok? Was it over the mark? If that was about me, would I be offended?"

    Well, the last one, no-one actually asks*. After we are wondering whether something is 'allowed' to be funny, we think, "that might offend 'them'". OK, we don't. I don't.

    Because, generally, "they" can take care of themselves. And when "they" can't, that's the right time to be offended.

    I'm not going to continue at the moment, but I will gladly be disagreed with.

    *The only reason to be offended at a joke, is the context. And the implication. And the point of origin. And the viaducts. And the timing.

    Last edited by Gerontophile; 28-04-2021, 10:54.

    #2
    'S funny, I got pointed towards James Acaster's skewering of transphobic comedians yesterday and it is brilliant - https://twitter.com/lalalogay/status...309504?lang=en

    As always, it is about context. If you set up the premise well enough, you can take an audience into dark places. I saw Jerry Sadowitz a while back and he was doing material sort of kind of about Grenfell, a couple of months afterwards but when you actually look at the joke, it really wasn't about that at all, it was just coming from his default position of hating everything in the world*. But too many comics just go straight for the shock jugular without taking the time to frame things.


    * Or as the man himself says "I don't hate everything. I only hate two things. Living things. And objects."

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Gerontophile View Post
      Laughter is cruelty. There is always a butt of the joke. A victim. Someone to blame.
      This isn't true though.

      What do you call a mushroom at a party? A fun guy to be with.

      My wife went to the West Indies. Jamaica? No, she went of her own accord.


      Jokes with butts are very culture dependent. I remember having to ask someone to explain the relevance of a 'character' in a joke being blonde, because I had never come across the idea that blonde women are airheads.

      Isn't Sadowitz supposed to be 'the exception that proves the rule'? Similarly, I like It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, a show that seems to be able to handle 'dark' material with wit and grace.

      Comment


        #4
        My mum once got very annoyed at us laughing at something on TV and told us in no uncertain terms that "Just because something is funny doesn't make it OK to say it."

        On this board I learned the distinction between punching up and punching down. Although I think that sometimes gives people leeway to make jokes that aren't ok. Recently there was a discussion about whether joking about Prince Harry's parentage was fair or not. (Joking about his progeny isn't acceptable either.)

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by delicatemoth View Post

          This isn't true though.

          What do you call a mushroom at a party? A fun guy to be with.

          My wife went to the West Indies. Jamaica? No, she went of her own accord.
          I like jokes like that. I can judge the quality of such jokes by the way Mrs Thistle groans at them. When she actually says the word "GRRROOOOOOAAANNNN" then I know it's a good joke.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by delicatemoth View Post

            What do you call a mushroom at a party? A fun guy to be with.

            My wife went to the West Indies. Jamaica? No, she went of her own accord.
            To repeat previous anthrophics on this subject, the butt of the joke in this instance is the teller.

            Laughter is the instinctive response dating back to our days as apes. It was inherently cruel - someone was a weakness to the pack, so you bared your teeth at them and made a loud noise (this is also why we are more likely to laugh when in company, as a pack response works better). Hence our propensity for physical comedy - if you're the type who slips on banana skins or gets repeatedly hit in the face by a rake, then you're a weakness to the tribe, so we'll scare you off. Likewise, mean jokes encourage us to laugh at the butt, and therefore scare him or her out of the tribe. Wordplay just makes the teller into the fool, and therefore the one to be laughed at (who'd want someone who can't communicate properly on their tribe?)

            Comment


              #7
              So I started to write:

              I think I'd go with DM and say there's a lot of comedy that simply requires clever wordplay or inversion of expectations. I know there are actual professional comedians on the board who'll explain it better, but for example Milton Jones could probably do 3 hours of material without punching in any direction whatsoever. (Except, possibly himself metaphorically, because that's always funny.) Maybe Tim Vine also?
              - and then, before I actually posted it, pebblethefish came along and a) explained better and b) explained why I was wrong.

              Back to Gero's question, I do sometimes wonder what we will accept in the context of a broader 'truth' or even from a comedian who we perceive to be essentially 'on the right side.' Stewart Lee is a fairly obvious example of someone who can say something utterly outrageous because he carefully constructs the context. I do worry that his safety net of breaking through the fourth wall with some self-mocking meta-analysis is going to let him down at some point though.

              Thanks for the Acaster link, Snake.

              Comment


                #8
                The "Stewart Lee" persona is the butt of the joke, because his immense smug self-satisfaction and assumed superiority makes him assume that he's above it all and any outrageousness is a failure on the audience to understand his innate genius which makes the pricking of the bubble and (deliberate) self-sabotage in his routines even funnier.

                Comment


                  #9
                  If there's a victim to your gag*, then the humour is always about context.

                  'Don't punch downward' is the unwritten rule - but if you are going to try and put a spin on that, then you'd better have a pretty damned original and funny take on it.

                  (*There are dozens of stand-ups that don't look for victims, not just Stephen Wright.)

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Snake Plissken View Post
                    The "Stewart Lee" persona is the butt of the joke, because his immense smug self-satisfaction and assumed superiority makes him assume that he's above it all and any outrageousness is a failure on the audience to understand his innate genius which makes the pricking of the bubble and (deliberate) self-sabotage in his routines even funnier.
                    I think that's why he will only ever be "comfortable" as opposed to "Michael McIntyre" rich. Too 'smartarsed'.

                    delicatemoth I can find the butts*** in both of those jokes. But, that is why I mentioned Steven Wright. (Tim Vine, not so much. But VERY close. I don't like him, because he is too fast. He is the antithetical Jimmy Carr. Not speed, but waiting for the "hahah oooo" moment, then he moves on. You can see that Frankie Boyle wrote for him.)

                    I apologise for writing my opening post at cluck o'clock in the morning, but I think I stand by it. If you punch up, you're fine. If you punch down, you're a hack.

                    I'm going to fuck you all up. I think that Louis CK is the best I've ever seen. Both live, and on tape. Aside from his personal life, the only person he pucnhes down upon in his 'comedy' is him.

                    (And I've seen "Douglas" about 8 times. Even in the 'lecture', there were butts of the joke, but , they were FUCKING FUNNY, and that's all that matters. Except, in Ms Gadsby's case, she is a freaking genius.)

                    This is not about absolutes, so I am happy to be wrong. Because, it's funny.

                    ***ah. I can find the subjects and objects, and when they are not human, it's ok. My premise is broken, feel free to tar and feather. It's my English, which is at fault? Incidentally... this is apropos of nothing. There is a rumour about this joke called "Arthur Brown".

                    I wish it to be known, that when I was 12 years old, it was called "Lord and Lady Muck". So, you know, fuck off.
                    Last edited by Gerontophile; 29-04-2021, 02:48.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by ChrisJ View Post
                      - and then, before I actually posted it, pebblethefish came along and a) explained better and b) explained why I was wrong.
                      Did he, though? Very wary of evolutionary psychology explanations of human behaviour, because most of it is bunk. Do babies laugh because “someone is a weakness to the pack”? Not convinced.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        When I did my psychology-related MSc we were warned off evolutionary psychology because it's theories are untestable. But then the department was very much into neuromapping and similar reductive explanations.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by delicatemoth View Post

                          This isn't true though.

                          What do you call a mushroom at a party? A fun guy to be with.

                          My wife went to the West Indies. Jamaica? No, she went of her own accord.


                          Jokes with butts are very culture dependent. I remember having to ask someone to explain the relevance of a 'character' in a joke being blonde, because I had never come across the idea that blonde women are airheads.

                          Isn't Sadowitz supposed to be 'the exception that proves the rule'? Similarly, I like It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, a show that seems to be able to handle 'dark' material with wit and grace.
                          In our house the punchline was "no, she went by boat"

                          (See also, "my dog's got no nose" - "we don't give him any")

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I'll defer to pretty much anyone with a knowledge of Ev Psych as mine is minimal. I was thinking more of the idea that with eg Milton Jones, many of his puns hinge on us laughing at his misunderstanding of an ambiguous phrase or homophone, so he's the target, which I hadn't really thought about - I was just enjoying wordplay.

                            There is quite a well-known phenomenon of "don't hit me I'm funny" but that may not be the same thing at all.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Chris, you might be correct.

                              The reason I suggested Steven in my original post was, that he found a way to be frankly, hilarious, without the need for a ... right?

                              I've just een listenting to"Spellbound" by Siouxsie and the Banshees. I wonder if I am allowed to like this? FUCK THAT SHIT. Of course I am. But, goalpost wise, am I?The good news is, that I am 54. I don't fucking care.If you are funny, I'll augh. If you are a cunt, and pretend to use that as a excuse to be funny, I'll know. I'm good at hearing comedy. If it's funny, I'll laugh.

                              There is literally notthing funny in the world, which punches down. Prove me wrong (not you, per se). I'm running through the library of my brother's jokes, and he is using me as a punchline, and every single one of them, are showing him to be a twat. I have the filthiest gay jokes you would never want to hear,, but I don't care. If they don't get a laugh, I don't care. It's not about me. It's about you.

                              (Sic)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X