Culture of Laughter - Essay Example

On the basis of Henri Bergson's theory of laughter compare the slapstick comedies from Loriot and Mr Bean Henry Bergson has explained laughter incontext with those surroundings in which any living being is deprived of feelings and emotions. Obviously, sentiments are the key characteristics of a human being; therefore Bergson explains that comedy only occurs to human beings in a social surrounding. Bergson indicates that laughter with humour triggers whenever any antisocial incident happens in a social environment. Therefore, laughter as a gesture should not be taken personally as it is a gesture used to express relief. A common perception that is found behind the character sketches of Loriot and Mr. Bean is that their writers have determined 'laughter' as a reaction that serves the function of a social sanction. In this context Bergson's research on laughter theory reveals that the function of comedy is to correct the 'follies' of mankind by making them appear ridiculous. In other words, such event in which any actor performs 'antisocially' generates an amusing situation. The power of laughter as a social sanction has thus been elucidated in many comedy movies as well as comics. On the other hand, we have seen that the theory of the 'corrective' function of laughter is inadequate to explain its arousal by verbal wit, which as we have seen is similar to any other type of ludicrous situation in many movies of Loriot. However, this is not the case with Mr. Bean, as Mr. Bean comedies revolve around gestures and expressions. Both the characters represent comedies in a social environment however, the difference exists in their way of representing; Loriot with less expressions and more humour whereas Mr. Bean with more physicality in the comedy. Loriot Vicco von Bulow, a German humour performer of comedy remembered as 'Loriot' is best known as a 'cartoonist' for the movies in which he used to perform. His famous work contains television series 'Loriot'. 'Odipussi' and 'Pappa ante portas' are his well known comedies in which he performed not only as a comedian but as a performer. (Loriot, 2007a) Though an all-rounder in artistic works (writer, director and poet), Loriot highlights humour in most of his comedy films and dramas by presenting a series of 'laughing' events, but still one wonders how the sheer relief of such events, whether in the participator who escapes in person or in the observer who watches a peril that passes him touch others, marks a distinct species of laughter. (Gregory, 1924, p. 22) Among all societies one finds a more or less organised system of social sanctions related to the prevailing code of right and wrong. Such sanctions may be positive, that is, designed to encourage socially desirable behaviour or they may be negative, that is, they may serve to discourage anti-social behaviour. Loriot's comedies inhibit all the characteristics of such positive and negative loopholes of the society in such a critical manner that one does not have any option other than to laugh. His comedies are non physical in nature as compared with those of Mr. Bean's and present before us the flaws of modern society in combination with humour and laugher that one does not feel awkward. Though such sanction exist in all societies, and any theory which is to explain their meaning must take account of their various manifestations in totally different types of social structure, but the way Loriot presents our society's dilemmas is much more than what viewer expects. (Piddington, 1963, p. 117) In other words we can say that Loriot presents society in a critical manner. Loriot's Humour If we analyse Loriot's work in the light of Bergson's laughter theory, most of his films represent laughter triggering in a social surrounding. Following the notion that laughter only triggers among humans, his films highlight all the antisocial happenings but in a social environment. This is evident from one of his dramas 'once upon a noodle', in which Loriot confronts a situation where all the restaurant members and friends have placed a noodle on their heads. Even Loriot's girl friend to whom he dates does not remain aloof from it. In the end Loriot has no option other than to place a noodle on his head too. This is a clear example of antisocial mishap in a society wrapped in comedy, in such a way that antisocial becomes a social act and what one assumes social is considered 'antisocial'. According to Michael Mulkay regarding humour, "the serious mode is characterised by action and, more specifically, language meaning what it says; by accepting a set of commonly held conventions about the singular nature of the world, the social actor in the serious mode expects those conventions to render the intent and meaning of his actions transparent to others". (Wickberg, 1998, p. 170) Comedy mode is nothing but its' opposite. Comedy characters are not transparent but uphold all the humour which is presented by their characters, actions and deeds. We are serious when we mean what we say. The humorous mode, on the other hand, calls into question the assumptions of the social world as held in the serious mode; it allows the social actor to say and mean things that cannot be said in the serious mode. For instance, it allows borrowing the language of the society, with regard to the intentions of the actor. The serious mode is characterized by singularity and consistency of meaning, by a unified view of the world free of ambiguity and contradiction. The humorous mode is its obverse, and necessary to sustain it; this is a world where meanings are multiple and incongruous where the strictures of the serious no longer obtain and by providing relief from those strictures, humour permits the fictive world. Mr. Bean While analysing the character of Mr. Bean, it is clear that his personality elaborates humour, and as we have seen in many of his movies, with the passage of time he associates with laughter in new ways, particularly in the manner which clearly shows from where he belongs; another planet, 'Mars'. Therefore Mr. Bean defines laughter in his movies by simply performing social acts but in a childish manner. There are no concepts of inferiority or superiority in Mr. Bean's movies or plays. When tragedy occurs in his movies, comedy depreciates his character to look down upon, on our moral and social inferiors. The most obvious thing in Mr. Bean's movies is his 'childish innocence' which depicts his personality originality. In his movies, his gestures matters and though phrases like "sorry, I didn't mean to harm you", "I am pleased with you" and "Thank you" are not uttered by Mr. Bean, but are evident from his gestures and facial expressions. The best things in Mr. Bean's movies are the absence of social classes or the sense of inferior or being superior, which according to Bergson must not be a part and parcel of comedy. Clearly the definition opens the door to a lot of mischief: undervaluing the one art and disparaging ordinary humankind. Yet the importance of that almost offhand dismissal lies in two little remarked assumptions that underlie it: first, that the path to an understanding of the comedy lies in the assessment of the quality, of the worth of what we laugh at; second, that what we laugh at falls below the norm, that it is a failure of worth, a quality impaired. Both the characteristics are present in Mr. Bean's comedies. Underlying these two assumptions is the belief that laughter, to be understood, must be inserted in a social context, that it discriminates between such socially arrived-at judgments as the fair and the ugly, the better and the worse, the successful and the failed. (Gutwirth, 1993, p. 30) Fortunately Mr. Bean's character negates this notion by alleviating societal discriminations. Since Mr. Bean is a 'Martian' he fulfils the criteria presented by Henri Bergson i.e., "to present such anti social events of the society that encourage us to laugh". Therefore, Mr. Bean's character in itself is an antisocial character - a character which is not commonly found in our society for he is unable to distinguish between race, classes or culture. In his latest movie, "Mr. Bean's travel", this factor is obvious. Mr. Bean is a tourist who loves to travel and explore the world. With Mr. Bean's character, one acknowledges that no one who experiences laughter directed at him can have escaped the sense of mortification, of belittlement, it inflicts. Conversely, even the most innocent laughter is the laughter at a child's earnest misapprehension. That is where Mr. Bean stands. (Gutwirth, 1993, p. 60) An innocent character, which is another's sadistic exercise, is never sad. Though his 'consciousness rising' is never fulfilled, but still Mr. Bean is the name we give to the gradual elimination of permissible targets of mockery. To be sure, the aggressive component of laughter must not be left out of reckoning. Plato's point that we laugh at the weak without fear of retaliation brings home the charge of hostility for which laughter secures impunity. Children promptly, loudly, and insistently deride the 'childishness' of other children younger in age or accomplishment. Uninhibited by considerations of prudence or fellow feeling born of repeated experience of one's own risibility, they display mockery in its pure state of naked rejoicement in a failure not one's own. In our analysis of the ludicrous we considered simple and even crude examples of laughter-provoking situations. Actually the situations that make us laugh are for the most part very much more complex than those which we usually consider; to become ludicrous a situation must present at least one pair of conflicting social evaluations, but it may, and generally does, present more. We have seen that in the simplest cases ludicrous quality depends upon two factors, namely, the applicability of both evaluations to the situation and the extent to which they conflict. In more complicated examples, however, we find other factors determining ludicrous quality; this raises the question of the aesthetics of laughter, a question to which science can offer an incomplete answer only. In the first place we must consider the possible types of social evaluation involved; though any pair of social evaluations which conflict may render a situation ludicrous, certain types of social evaluation are more likely to do so than others. Thus the system of linguistic evaluations (language), on account of the small number of words in any language as compared with the multiplicity of actual situations referred to, makes possible verbal wit, but this, as pointed out above, is never a part of remarkable ludicrous quality. When, however, we turn to other schemes of social evaluations we find more scope for the production of ludicrous effects the two schemes of social evaluations upon which most ludicrous situations depend are probably evaluations of rank and evaluations connected with sex, just like in Loriot's comedies. Evaluations of rank or social status readily give rise to ludicrous effects, because there are so many ways in which they may be denied. The rank of an individual in any social group is expressed by certain obligatory reactions on his part and by certain reactions on the part of other members of the group towards him. Any deviation from the accepted pattern of these reactions negates the existing system of social evaluations upon which the life of the group to a large extent depends. (Gantar, 1999) Generally speaking, the reactions in respect to persons of higher rank are more rigidly circumscribed by tradition than those connected with social inferiors, but then again comedy is not a comedy unless practiced in a social environment. In a comedy there are two possible ways of producing a ludicrous effect: Two conflicting themes may run through the play or book, and the total effect be one of contrast, or the work may derive its ludicrous quality from a series of minor situations each of which is by itself ludicrous, vaudeville dialogue being an extreme form of the latter technique. In every good comedy, however, the two methods are blended, though stress is frequently laid on one or the other. Though ludicrous situations generally involve pairs of conflicting evaluations, any number may, theoretically, be present, a fact which might be deduced from our analysis of the compensatory function of laughter. Though we are not from the scientific point of view concerned with the aesthetic value of laughter of Loriot and Mr. Bean, but we may point out that such a value exists. The ludicrous is not, as Aristotle suggests, merely a variety of the ugly on the contrary, the requirements of the ludicrous render possible artistic creation. Comedy possesses a definite aesthetic value, which depends upon the discovery of ludicrous situations the proper synthesis of which constitutes the art of the comic dramatist, the humorous artist, and the wit. Having reviewed and criticised the various opinions about Loriot and Mr. Bean, we came to the conclusion that no one of them offers a complete and adequate solution of the problem of laughter. We found that the relationship between elementary laughter and laughter at the ludicrous could be understood by invoking the principle of psychic compensation, laughter serving a social function by a process analogous to 'exaggeration of the opposite character'. All ludicrous situations being necessarily, though never seriously, subversive to the social order, the reaction of laughter, affirming as it does the entirely satisfactory nature of the situation, breaking up all trains of thought, and producing an effect of bodily euphoria, is the socially appropriate response to the stimulus of the ludicrous. We are justified in claiming this as the primary function of laughter at the ludicrous, though it also serves other secondary functions. (Piddington, 1963, p. 148) References Gantar Jure, (1999) "The Case of the Falling Man: Bergson and Chaos Theory" In: Mosaic. Volume: 32. Issue: 2. p: 43. Gregory, J. C, (1924) The Nature of Laughter: Harcourt, Brace: London. Gutwirth Marcel, (1993) Laughing Matter: An Essay on the Comic: Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY. Piddington Ralph, (1963) The Psychology of Laughter: A Study in Social Adaptation: Gamut Press: New York. Loriot, 2007a Accessed from < http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0902086/bio> Read More