The Megahit Movies

by Richard Stefanik

  The need to change from “one viewpoint to its direct opposite” becomes essential in designing jokes that produce laughter. On the emotional impact of attitude-mixing, Monro, in Argument of Laughter, states “We all of us practice a mental compartmentalism: we sort out the facts of our environment into different mental compartments, and decide that a particular attitude and emotion is appropriate to each. The linking of disparates may mean the shattering of this orderly system. We then have an attitude-mixing or universe-changing.”

  The famous French philosopher, Henri Bergson, stated that, “Laughter is incompatible with emotion. Depict some fault, however trifling, in such a way to arouse sympathy, fear or pity; the mischief is done, it is impossible for us to laugh.” This is true only if the situation concludes by being a state of affairs truly eliciting sympathy, fear, or pity. But it is not true if there is a sudden change of interpretation of the situation that it concludes by being non-threatening. Then, the pent up energy is released, which in itself is a pleasurable feeling. Emotions and laughter are not incompatible, as Bergson held. On the contrary, strong emotions are necessary for the greatest outbursts of laughter. It is only certain types of emotions, like pity, fear, or anger, if they persist in a situation, will block laughter.

  There seems to be a structure to the emotional dynamics underlying the laughter producing process. The viewer perceives a situation. Suddenly, he notices an “incongruity”; something is occurring that is inappropriate in this type of situation. There is a deviation from the patterns the viewer has come to expect in this situation. This produces tension and stress because this deviation can be threatening. The viewer physiologically becomes energized, and he starts to develop the emotions of fear or anger, depending on his perception of the deviation. He concentrates and further analyses the situation, which demands more psychic energy. Suddenly, there is a new change in the pattern that allows the viewer to interpret the situation as non-threatening. There is no longer a need for the energy that he has been accumulating. He then releases this energy in laughter. The greater the perceived threat, the greater is the accumulated energy, and the greater the outburst of laughter when this energy is finally released.

  THEORIES OF HUMOR Humor is an experience that causes people to laugh. Humor is generated by a sudden radical deviation from expected patterns of behavior in a situation that concludes by being non-threatening to the perceiver. Upon reflection, these situations are characterized as containing incongruous elements or exhibiting behavior patterns that are inappropriate in this type of situation.

  Before applying this definition to the analysis of popular films, it would be valuable to explain how this constructive theory integrates elements from other theories of humor.

  Many people question whether there can be a theory of humor. For example, John Morreall, in Taking Laughter Seriously, states that “...we are still without an adequate general theory of laughter. The major difficulty here is that we laugh at such diverse situations that it seems difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a single formula that will cover all cases of laughter.”

  As Victor Raskin, in Semantic Mechanisms of Humor, states, “Different people will not necessarily find the same things equally funny—many things which strikes one group as funny may bore another group; some jokes are private or individual, i.e., restricted in their funniness to just one or very few individuals. However, the ability to appreciate and enjoy humor is universal and shared by all people, even if the kinds of humor that they favor differ widely. This universality of humor is further reinforced by the fact that surprisingly many jokes or situations will strike surprisingly many, if not all people as funny.”

  The project of a constructive theory of humor is not to explain the cause of every instance of laughter, but instead to arrive at a few fundamental concepts that a writer could use to construct humorous situations; situations that will make most of the audience laugh. It cannot guarantee that everyone will laugh (although it will provide reasons that explain why everyone doesn’t laugh). These methods are intended to be an extension to the general theory of story construction in that it is consistent with and uses most of the concepts already explicated.

  The following division of theories of humor is a modification of the research presented in the book, The Psychology of Humor by Jeffrey Goldstein and Paul McGhee.

  The Self-Knowledge Theory of Humor (Pretense) This theory was originally proposed by Plato, who stated that a necessary condition for humor is the presence of “a failing, one that tales its name from a state of the character, and is that specific form of failing with the characteristic quite opposite to what the oracle of Delphi recommends.” What the oracle of Delphi recommends is that a person “know thyself.”

  This theory of humor can be characterized as the theory of pretense. We laugh at those characters that lack self-knowledg; we laugh at ourselves when we recognize our faults, and at others when they fail to recognize their faults. We laugh at those whose behavior is fraudulent, who attempt to present themselves as something different than their actions show them to be. Usually, these characters attempt to present themselves as having an “authority” which in reality they do not possess. We laugh when this incongruity suddenly becomes evident, when the fraud is exposed, and the characters unsuccessfully try to “cover up” their exposure. This is a sudden deviation from the expected patterns of character that the individual has presented to the audience. Once his fraud is exposed, he is no longer a threat to the audience.

  Biological, Instinct, and Evolution Theories Theories in this group place emphasis on the biological benefits of laughter and humor. “Laughter and humor have been hailed as ‘good for the body’ because they restore homeostasis, stabilize blood pressure, oxygenate the blood, massage the vital organs, stimulate circulation, facilitate digestion, relax the system, and produce a feeling of well-being.”

  Some believe that laughter evolved as a biological corrective to the effects of sympathy. “Without a sense of the ludicrous, nature’s antidote for minor and depressing and disagreeable spectacles confronting men, the species might have not survived.” Laughter gradually became a substitute for assault. The similarity of bodily stance (exposed teeth, contorted face, sprawling movements of the limbs) in both fighting and laughter is pointed to as evidence. Present day ridicule can be traced to the primitive thrashing of enemies. “Laughter has also been viewed as the means of maintaining group standards in primitive times.”

  The primary focus of these theories is the impact of laughter on the biological state of the individual, and not the construction of humorous situations that will generate laughter, which is the enterprise of the present book.

  Surprise Theories The element of surprise is a necessary element for humor and laughter. The constructivist theory incorporates surprise in the feature of “sudden” deviation of expectations. The film’s audience is constantly monitoring the movie for change in an effort to comprehend the story. “Our whole sensory apparatus,” writes Gombrich, “is basically tuned to the monitoring of unexpected change. Continuity fails to register after a time, and this is true both on the physiological and psychological level.”

  In order for laughter to result, a necessary condition is that the change be sudden. In Taking Laughter Seriously, John Morreall states, “For a sudden change there must be a relatively large difference between the two states, and the time separating these states must be short.” Suddenness is necessary to disrupt the tranquility of continuity in order for the physiological process of laughter to begin.

  Superiority-Disparagement Theories The Superiority theories assert that laughter is the result of feelings of triumph over other people. We laugh when we compare ourselves to others, and feel less stupid, less ugly, less unfortunate, or less weak. These theories assert that mockery, ridicule, and laughter at the foolish actions of others are central to humor.

  In Comedy Writing Secrets, Melvin Helitzer argues for the position that humor is reducible to superior
ity, hostility, aggression, and malice. To those we consider superior, because they are in positions of authority or are more famous, richer, or more intelligent, physically stronger, or socially admired, we delight in publicizing their every shortcoming, perceived or real. The greater the prestige of the individual, the greater is our desire to equalize. The largest category of contemporary humor and witticism is insult humor.

  But Helitzer’s thesis is not fully justified by the types of humor found in popular movies, for only a small number of humorous instances include elements of superiority and derision. This form of humor, while it does occasionally generate laughter, expresses attitudes and behavior that are inappropriate within contemporary culture. It is, therefore, a mode of behavior characteristic of the antagonist and his supporters, best exemplified by the Joker in Batman.

  Hostility is not a necessary aspect of humor, although it is often found in many situations that produce laughter. This is because the character is usually attacking a norm or standard he hates. If the audience believes that the norm is oppressive, then they will have great empathy for the character that attacks this norm. But hostility is not necessary to produce laughter. A sudden deviation from the expected pattern is the sufficient condition.

  Given the mixed feelings that hostility produces, the mocking and ridiculing form of behavior is best associated with the antagonist and his supporters. Examples of this behavior are Belloc in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Joker in Batman, and the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz.

  Bergson’s Theory of Humor Henri Bergson, the famous French philosopher, “attributed laughter to the ‘mechanical encrusted on something living’.” He meant that when man becomes rigid, machine-like, and repetitive, he becomes laughable, since the essence of humanity is its flexibility and spirit. While Bergson’s theory may explain the behavior of the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz, it is not helpful in explaining the humor of the Scarecrow and the Cowardly Lion, plus many other laughter producing situations found in popular movies. “The mechanical encrusted on something living,” is a type of “deviation from expected patterns of behavior,” that of excessive rigidity. Another form of deviance is excessive plasticity, which is expressed by the Scarecrow. While a third is that of deviating from the expected attributes of a stereotype, in the case of the Cowardly Lion, because the stereotype of a lion has the feature of a courageous and ferocious beast. Therefore, Bergson’s theory is a limited special case of the more general constructivist theory.

  Another of Bergson’s ideas may be more fruitful in the development of humorous constructs: the idea of a “reciprocal interference of series.” To draw a quote from D.H. Monro’s Argument of Laughter:

  A situation…is invariably comic when it belongs to two independent series of events and is capable of being interpreted in two entirely different meanings at the same time. Thus we have the stage made misunderstanding, in which the actors put one interpretation on events, while the audience knows the real one. This is an idea that is later developed, with variations, by researchers working within the incongruity theory, such as Koestler and Paulos. It is also a predecessor of Victor Raskin’s “script-based semantic theory” of humor construction. In general, this is a deviation from pragmatic rules of language use and the expectation that people will understand each other and discuss the same topic whenever they engage in conversation.

  Ambivalence

  In The Psychology of Humor, the authors state that Ambivalence theories (or “conflict-mixture” and “oscillation”) hold that laughter results when the individual simultaneously experiences incompatible emotions or feelings… we laugh whenever, on contemplating an object or situation, we find opposite emotions struggling within us for mastery. Although there is obvious similarity between ambivalence and incongruity theories, incongruity theories tend to stress ideas of perceptions, whereas ambivalence theories stress emotions or feelings.

  This theory focuses on the emotional reactions of the individual viewer and not the structure of the situation that produced these emotions. Not considered is the interactive process that produces these incompatible motions in the perceiver. These are the concerns of the constructivist theory of humor.

  The Relief Theory The Relief Theory emphasizes that laughter is due to an overflow of surplus energy that results when the serious expectations of the person laughing are not met and his attention is diverted to something less dangerous. In other words, the energy the person accumulated because of a “serious expectation” suddenly turns out to be inappropriate for the situation. This “serious expectation” could have been the intense concentration needed to solve a puzzle or problem, the arousal that occurs with anger, fear, terror, or the energy needed either to fight or for flight. John Morreall, in Taking Laughter Seriously, discusses the Relief Theory:

  Any prohibition can cause a person to build up an increase desire to do what has been forbidden, and this frustrated desire may manifest itself in pent-up nervous energy…Freud thought that sex and hostility were the only drives whose repression led to laughter, but any taboo can set the stage for relief laughter. The release of energy, then, may be of nervous energy built up before the person entered the laughter situation. The other kind of release we mention is the release, not of pre-existing energy, but of energy built up by the laughter situation itself. When we listen to certain nonsexual, nonhostile jokes, for example, the narrative may arouse certain emotions in us toward the characters in the story. But then at the punch line the story takes an unexpected turn, or the characters are shown not to be what we thought they were, and so emotional energy that has been built

  up is suddenly superfluous and demands release. The release of this energy, according to the simplest version of the theory, is laughter.

  Although this theory also focuses on the physiological reactions that occur in the viewer of a situation, it does not point out the role that tension plays in generating the energy that is later released in laughter. Tension in a situation is the result of conflict and jeopardy for a character for which the audience has empathy.

  The greater the tension, conflict, and jeopardy in a scene, the greater the amount of energy accumulated in the viewer, and the greater the laughter when this energy is released. When there is a sudden radical deviation from expectations in the scene, the emotions built up are shown to be irrelevant and then released in laughter. These factors are essential elements of the constructivist theory of humor.

  Freud and the Psychoanalytical Theory of Humor Freud’s theory is a variation of the relief theory embedded within the conceptual framework of Freudian psychoanalysis. Freud’s theory explicates humor within the intra-psychic dynamics of the individual, using his concepts of id, ego, and superego. What may be useful for screenwriters in his theory has already been discussed in the analysis of the superiority and relief theories. Freud’s emphasis on the use of ambiguity and double meanings to disarm one’s “censors” can be incorporated in some types of humorous constructions. But Freud’s principle that “in humor there is an economy in the expenditure of feeling” is not a constructive principle that helps a screenwriter design humorous characters or situations in a story.

  The Incongruity Theory John Morreal, in Taking Laughter Seriously, states that, “the basic idea behind the incongruity theory is very general and quite simple. We live in an orderly world, where we have come to expect certain patterns among things, their properties, events, etc. We laugh when we experience something that does not fit into these patterns.”

  The idea that incongruity forms the basis of humor was originally developed by the critic Hazlitt and the philosophers Kant and Schopenhauer, whose statement of the theory is the most fruitful.

  Humor often occurs in this way: two or more real objects are thought through one concept; it then becomes strikingly apparent from the entire difference of the objects in other respects, that the concept was only applicable to them from a one-sided point of view.

  John Monro, in Argument of Laughter, emphasizes
the concept of inappropriateness: We have returned continually to the linking of disparates, to the collision of different mental spheres, to the obtrusion into one context of what belongs to another. We have found this to be an element in many kinds of humor…if we want a convenient single word for it, we may call it inappropriateness.

  The concepts of incongruity and inappropriateness are essential to the constructivist theory of humor and are found to be the most fruitful in constructing humorous situations and explaining the humorous situations found in popular films.

  Configurational Theories of Humor That humor is experienced when elements originally perceived as unrelated suddenly fall into place is the basis for configurational theories of humor. There is a relationship between the concepts found in incongruity and configurational theories. Each stresses the cognitive and perceptual attributes of humor, but the main difference lies in the point at which humor emerges. In the Incongruity Theory, it is the perception of “disjointness” that produces the laughter. In the Configurational Theory, it is the “falling into place” or sudden “insight” that produces the laughter. Laughter in both cases comes from the release of “mental tension” generated by the effort to make things “make sense.”

  Both are “sudden radical deviations from expected patterns” of interpretation of the events in the story. The authors of The Psychology of Humor present Schiller’s explanation of configurational humor:

  “Dynamic Duality” theory proposed jokes to be a variety of problem solving. Jokes are analogous to ambiguous figures which can be seen in different ways. The comic feeling is a logical joy aroused by a sudden change in the configuration of a thought pattern of unstable structure, showing the double aspect of a moment in its dynamic duality.