VIOLENCE IN COMEDY

The largest problem in discussing any kind of comedy is one of the basic rules of performing and writing comedy as well: explaining a joke kills it. One of the best examples of this rule is Freud’s dissertation on jokes and the subconscious. In trying to explain humor, Freud ruins every single joke he attempts to analyze. This is the first obstacle in discussing humor, so please watch or read everything before I talk about it, so that you can fully appreciate it without it being ruined before. All the posts have accompanying links to their respective content.

 

 In his book, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, Freud examines humor and attempts to draw connections between someone’s psychology and their enjoyment of comedy. He claims that this enjoyment is caused by a repression deep in one’s subconscious. He also identifies characteristics of comedy that are the basic components of any joke: “activity, relation to the content of our thoughts, the characteristic of playful judgment, the coupling of dissimilar things, contrasting ideas, ‘sense in nonsense,’ the succession of bewilderment and enlightenment, the bringing forward of what is hidden, and the peculiar brevity of wit.” He then questions the technicality of these terms, but they still serve as a good basis for judging comedic form.

 

Out of all of the ways to make a joke listed by Freud, I think the most basic form is juxtaposition or the “coupling of dissimilar things.” Also a basic component of surrealist literature and art, this technique attempts to marry two completely different ideas through comedy. The surrealists took lessons in reading Comte de Lautréamont who famously said, “beau...comme la rencontre fortuite sur une table de dissection d’une machine à coudre et d’un parapluie!” or “as beautiful as the fortuitous encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissection table.” Juxtaposition is one of the foundations of absurdist and surreal comedy, but it is also a necessary tool for all types of comedy. There is another idea that through this juxtaposition or form of comedy, that humor arises out of a violation of an expectation. Already that violation interrupts the flow of a logical thought process.

 

Comedy is always fraught with controversy. Questions of what are and are not acceptable to joke about are based on the common thought that comedy is making light of something topical. Because of the need to marry two objects that do not belong together, violence has always been a part of comedy. This tenuous relationship makes us not only question how violent comedy can be without crossing the line into tragedy but also the ethical dilemma of using violence as a mechanism to make people laugh.

 

Early in this class, we discussed the effects of violence as being disturbing and causing some sort of trauma on the audience and the participants. By representing violence as something to laugh at, comedy calls into question the effects of representation on serious matters as well as asking why violence can be funny. Because, when done properly, it can be hilarious. Some of the best comedians and writers have used violence to carry out laughter, and there’s a reason. Not only does violence have a taboo-like aura that lends it to be a risqué move on the comedian’s part, but also when pulled off, it acts on several levels. As we talked about during our discussion Barthes’ essay, actions have three participants: the victim, the perpetrator, and the benefactor. In this case, the audience is the benefactor, receiving humor and hopefully laughter from the observed comedy. The questions I hope to address by examining violence in comedy are: how are we affected by laughing at and receiving humor from violent acts represented by the comedian? How do comedians use violence within their comedy? Whom does the violence affect, both in the world of the comedy and outside of the comedy? Why do we laugh at acts of violence and representations of violence?