Video Assignment Week #4 (Due Tuesday)

I chose two videos to demonstrate sarcasm and irony as discussed in chapter one and four. I did chose a video that I have already posted previously, but had a difficult time finding anything that made me laugh as much as Matthew Perry’s sarcasm 101 class. Furthermore, to illustrate irony I used a short movie clip by mean girls in which Regina George (blond) mentions she likes something that the other person is wearing and then remarkably states “that is the ugliest shirt I’ve ever seen.” In our textbook, it mentions how sarcasm and irony are very closely correlated together. It depends on the effect of “bitter, caustic, and other ironic language that is usually directed against as individual.” This movie clip illustrates just that, since Regina is mentioning to another student her admiration of vintage and then reports back to Kady that she hates it, which makes Kady remember the time Regina mentioned she loved her Africa bracelet. In other words people use irony and sarcasm in an unkindly manner towards an individual usually. Moreover, in the Matthew Perry Clip, he uses verbal irony and harsher sarcasm towards the students. He doesn’t just pick out one individual but a couple to pick on, when they don’t understand the concept of the assignment that was given or when Marissa shows up late.
When it comes to theories and perspectives, obviously it’s a no brainer that it relates to sarcasm and irony stated in our textbook. In chapter 1, sarcasm is referred to as aggressive humor that targets an individual rather than an institution. Irony is when the speaker expresses a statement in which the actual meaning is the opposite of what was said (intended meaning). Both usually go hand in hand, for example you are such a good friend, when actually the friend has backstabbed them, so therefore there is some sarcasm with irony involved. If I had to relate these two topics to a theory it would best fit with incongruity theory because it focuses more on cognition then social and emotional aspects of humor. In this case, yeah you need some social aspects to realize is something is humorous, but that usually goes for anything, since it is usually funnier in a group. In order to understand humor one has to be able to cognitively wrap the concept around their brain about what kind of humor is going on and why it is so funny to them. Not everyone understands irony or especially sarcasm, but those who think in those ways usually love it and find joy out of doing or hearing these types of remarks. Moreover, the incongruity is the basis of humor. This is the type of humor I enjoy the most.
The theories and perspectives that have difficulty accounting for humor when it comes to irony and sarcasm would have to be the reversal theory, because it has nothing to do with paratelic and telic states of mine. For one, there is no goal-directed humor for present or future references. It can be playful though. Furthermore, when it comes to perspectives, I don’t think that a computer would be clever enough to distinguish between sarcasm and irony because there are different forms of both, which sometimes I don’t even understand right away since I am used to my sense of humor and no so much everyone else’s.
Overall, I love sarcastic and ironic remarks; it’s crazy to think that I have a schema about what I classify as both these categories in my mind. Therefore, it someone’s remark is different from what I know I have to rethink my schema to correlate with what new information I am presented with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b9OeKxQG6U&feature=related

By the end of this semester it will be blatantly obvious how much I love the show Friends. In this clip there are two instances where Monica and Ross share weird stories from their childhood and Chandler, Monica’s husband and Ross’ best friend wonders what he married into. The first section is funny because Ross and Monica look incredibly nerdy and is based on Chandler’s remark “What did I marry into?” This form of humor is aggressive, because although he does not mean to actually insult Ross and Monica, he is making fun of the way they act when they talk about their childhood.

The second section is funny for a number of reasons. Incongruency is woven into the entire situation. When the scene starts Ross is talking about a moment he has revered for his entire adult life. It moves on to bring up a moment every girl holds in very high regard- her first kiss. The entire situation is turned around when Ross and Monica find out this sacred moment they thought was so wonderful is ruined because for Ross it wasn’t shared with the woman he loved for so long, and for Monica it wasn’t some handsome midnight kisser… it was their sibling. This is the incongruency that makes the sketch funny.

This can account for a number of theories, the latest theories, those involving schemas are involved because when picturing Ross’ first kiss with Rachel its romantic, but then turning Rachel into Monica is a different perception because brothers and sisters shouldn’t share a romantic kiss. The incongruency in these ideas account for the incongruency theories, and also the social theories. It is not socially acceptable to kiss your brother, or, referring back to the first scene they are not socially excepted while showing their nerdy childhood.

Chandlers character as a whole could account for the Superiority Theories, as his sarcasm is often perceived as an aggressive form of humor which would be an effort to try to exert his superiority over his friends.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/68225/saturday-night-live-debbie-downer

This is a clip from Saturday Night Live and it’s a sketch that’s been done several times called Debbie Downer. Basically, the idea of all the Debbie Downer sketches is that this girl Debbie can bring any fun social occasion down with her comments about bad things that are happening in the world or that have happened to her. Normally, to me anyway, these sketches are funny because of the music, the facial expressions, and just that this character has the ability to find something negative about practically anything. But this particular sketch was especially funny to me because it’s one of those rare SNL occasions where the cast is cracking up, which amazingly, they hardly ever do (I don’t know how they do it!).

There are were two theories that came to my mind when I was thinking about why this clip is funny—the schema theory of humor, and the incongruity theory. So, I thought, to some degree, we all have a schema about Saturday Night Live, even if you don’t watch the show very often or if you’re not familiar with it, you know that it’s a compilation of comedy sketches. If you are familiar with the show, you probably know that when the cast members do a sketch, for the most part, they do a pretty good job of not breaking character and laughing. But the show is live and sometimes there are people that break and start to laugh. Here’s where I thought that incongruity theory comes in. When they laugh, it’s unexpected and extra funny because they aren’t really suppose to be laughing. In this clip of the Debbie Downer sketch, you see almost every one of the cast members break character and start to laugh, but not just a little bit, they really loose it in this one—I thought it was a special and rare occasion! I think it’s funny because I think that laughter is really infectious, especially during a time when you aren’t suppose to be laughing like in church, during class, or during a live comedy sketch. And the thing is, we can’t be sure about what exactly they’re laughing at. It could be an inside joke that was triggered, like something that happened during the dress rehearsal or if it was something that we couldn’t see because the cameras didn’t catch it. But it’s still funny.

So we have this schema about Saturday Night Live that the show is going to be funny, and what the cast members do is going to be funny. [Just a side note: I think I could also mention the Reversal theory here too! When we sit down to watch the show we are in the paratelic state. We are ready to watch a show we know is a comedy, and we’re ready to laugh, so maybe that adds to the humor of the video.] But we also have a schema that they are not going to mess up or break down laughing during a sketch. So when this happens, it’s unexpected or incongruous. The sketch itself probably would have been funny without all the laughing, but I think unexpected laughter of the cast makes it even funnier!

One theory that I don’t really think fits into describing why this is funny would be the psychoanalytic theory. The point of this show and why we watch it is because we enjoy it and we want to laugh, not because we have built up energy that we need release (well I mean we might have built up energy, obviously, but I don’t think that’s the sole purpose of the show). The show is for entertainment. I also don’t see a lot of obvious jokes that are sexual or aggressive in nature. I mean, sure a lot of the sketches on SNL are definitely of that nature, but I’m not so sure that this one in particular is (although I could be wrong). And the main reason I found it funny was not really the sketch itself, but the fact that the cast is laughing on live TV. I don’t think that aspect of why I find it funny is sexual or aggressive in nature.

I choose a short clip from That 70s Show. It is a scene of Fez doing prank calls on Kelso. First I notice there is a difference in the states of mind of the characters. Fez is in a paratelic or playful mind set. People within this mind set our seeking arousal, like prank calling. However Kelso is within a telic mind set or goal oriented, he is worried about the call about the birth of his child. He gets very upset with low arousal or the jokes that Fez is trying to play.

During the first prank call, there is also incongruity. Kelso was asking the phone expecting to hear good news about his child, when really it is Fez. This is an example of when incongruity. Because he thinks it is a real phone call, however it is really a prank. Kelso smiles after he hangs up on Fez, understanding the phone call to be a prank.

The second prank call I think shows irony. It appears that Kelso is confused when Fez said…”is your refrigerator running?” like he is taking it literally. The irony comes with the punch line. “You better go catch it” which Kelso interprets as the joke.

Overall, the humor for us the larger audience comes in the conversation. We don’t expect this kind of interaction between two grown men. We find this it to be there to be incongruity between normal and Fez and Kelso interactions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhziE-2UgdY

Some people may not think this is that funny, but once in a while I find myself liking these kinds of videos; and actually find them to be quite hilarious. Others may think that this video seems to drag on but I think it is funny because I came across this video when I was in the paratelic state of mind. I believe that if I were in the telic mode, this would not be as humorous because the content would be more annoying than funny.

This whole video is mainly a satire, because it is poking fun at social things, such as mothers and their attire. Obviously, the video also uses a large amount of teasing because the video is making fun of a mom’s appearance. I believe that Berlyne’s arousal theory relates to this video because the humorous event, (the video) contains collative variables, such as surprise and incongruity. Also, laughter in this video is an expression of the pleasure resulting from change in arousal.

Though I do think this video is humorous, I believe that the arousal jag mechanism takes over throughout the video because too much arousal was present, therefore it began to be aversive. I believe that the book sums up this video because it states that “the way people use and express humor in a given time and place is strongly influenced by cultural norms, beliefs, attitudes, and values.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5sqbxzVPFY

I love Kevin Hart’s stand-up routines. I can watch the same part over and over and I still laugh. In this part, he is trying to describe how fifteen years in prison has affected his uncle. I explain this humor with incongruity and reversal theory. The incongruity is seen throughout the routine. First, he is small and has a higher pitched voice yet he is trying to portray a large, deep voiced man. Also, most people can picture the man and his demeanor which Kevin Hart does not display. When he begins telling the story, he not only talks about how his uncle acts, he also provides his reaction to his uncle. This, in a way, is using disparagement which reversal theory sights as necessary. This happens when Kevin Hart provides his reaction as shocked or even scared by his uncle.

The bulk of the incongruity in this part of his routine comes from the things the uncle is saying. He says things that Kevin (and the audience) doesn’t understand but in such a serious way that it is incongruous. Then the disparagement comes with Kevin trying to comply with his uncle’s incomprehensible demands. His uncle obviously is speaking to Kevin how he spoke in prison but Kevin does not understand so he tries to make sense of the situation. He tells us about this is a way that diminishes the seriousness of his uncle. For example, when his uncle says, “Kev, pin the tail on his ass!” Kevin looks around confused and flustered and says, “Is it his birthday? Why would I do that?”

Some of Kevin’s responses could also be looked at in terms of synergy. They provide a shift in interpretation. The last example will work to explain this too. His uncle was obviously talking about some sort of aggressive act but Kevin shifted the interpretation with his response. Also, at the end when his uncle says, “Say it with your chest!” Kevin actually pokes out his chest to repeat his last line. The uncle meant for Kevin to use a more powerful voice.

It’s a short clip so I don’t have much to explain but reversal theory including incongruity can be used to explain the humor in it.

I am choosing to post a video link that I have viewed many times and still find humorous. It is a video a lot of people I know have seen and consider humorous as well because of the famous actor in it. The Landlord skit which features Will Farrell as the tenant, and ironically, his daughter, "Pearl" who plays the landlord is funny because of the context. The three year-old child who plays the landlord demands her rent from Farell. The fact that a small child demanding money from a grown man and the use of profanity makes this skit funny. I would definitely say incongruity theories play a major role here because it is inconsistent with societal norms for a young child to be asking for rent money. There is a superiority theme and aggressiveness used ("Where's the rent? You pay now!") even though it is a reversal of standard roles (a child superior to an adult - once again, themes of incongruity).

I also believe the frames and scripts of cognitive psychology play a role here. Since we do not see an adult telling a child what to do, which is a typical script of parenting and societal values and the roles have been reversed, we must cognitively imagine a different role play. I believe this is what makes the skit humorous. We must use a cognitive mindset to establish that this frame is unfamiliar and adapt to a new set of rules that are presented; this is what elicits humor. Of course, it is funny also that a three year-old is bossing around an adult!

Humor as cognitive play is another concept that ties into this video. The fact that we must play with language and ideas (frames and scripts) elicits positive emotions of "having fun" watching such a skit and allows us to exhibit mirth if we find it funny. The positive emotional state we get from this is enjoyable and fun to share in a social setting. This type of humor could also be classified under irony because it is the opposite of what should be taking place.

Overall, this is one of my favorite videos to watch. I have watched it many times and I can never keep a straight face. Maybe it is because I find Will Farrell a funny actor in general. Putting him in this sequence with his daughter, consequently, his "landlord" however, I cannot help laugh at what is taking place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUxBWux5DC0

I chose a clip from a George Carlin routine. During the video he goes through the experience of getting on an airplane and then going through the airplane safety lecture. I think this video can fall into 2 different theories about why it is funny. First is the incongruity theory. Most people don’t think about airplane safety lectures as funny. However, when you hear George Carlin give the lecture it’s hilarious. I think one of the funniest things about Carlin is his voice tones and body language. the way he presents the information is so unlike a flight attendant that it makes it funny. I also think you can explain it by the reversal theory. The reversal theory states that humor is a state of play. I believe Carlin’s demeanor puts you in the paratelic state of mind and once you’re there you’re ready to laugh at almost anything.

I think all of the theories can explain different parts of the video. There are some sexual jokes in the video (talking about the cockpit, and putting the seat back forward) however, I don’t think that those are huge parts of the skit. I believe the reason the clip is so funny is because of Carlin’s sarcastic demeanor and not because of the sexual or aggressive nature of some of the jokes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFW6NHbWX0E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy1ZFX6_1uw&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PwbQCWtovo&feature=channel

Both of the videos provided are an excellent example of unintentional physical humor. Not much explanation is needed for what is exactly happening in the video, but basically a line of people (some type of team/group maybe) is throwing high-fives to the crowd. During all the commotion and good spirits the guy behind the girl is accidentally slapped; clearly not out of aggression but a pure, innocent mistake (guy’s expression shows he didn’t mean to). This is funny to me because of the title (you get a feeling of what might happen), it’s clearly unscripted (some type of school event), and just the fact that it is perfectly unplanned by either person (slapper and the slapped). The second video shows a chick attempting a pull up and then all the sudden the pull up device disconnects from the door frame. Unintentional humor, such as when someone slips on ice, is referred to as slapstick or screwball humor. According to the book, accidental physical humor includes minor mishaps and pratfalls such as the person slipping on a banana peel or spilling their drink on their shirt. The unintentional humor can contain accidental linguistic humor, which can consist of misspellings, mispronunciations, or errors in logic. In my opinion some of the most laughable moments are unscripted. For example, in quite a few movies they have outtakes of actors or stunt doubles performing a scene and messing up or doing something funny even though it was clearly unscripted.

One theory that can account for why this is humorous is the superiority/disparagement theory. A quote from the text states, “the passion of laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly.” Humor is found in these videos due to a sense of superiority derived from the disparagement of another person or of one’s own past mistakes or foolishness. Seeing another individual in a state of foolishness makes the spectators laugh from their raised self-esteem, perhaps we are all thinking, lucky that’s not me and its funny that it was you and not me looking foolish (even if it is on accident). Also, irony and sarcasm make an appearance in these videos as well, in words. The title of the videos (High-Five Fail and Chin-up Fail) and then the quick sarcastic comments at the end of each video too (these two are not BFFs anymore) are great examples of sarcasm and irony due to their opposite meaning but direct meaning.

One theory that might be difficult to account for these videos being humorous is the schema theory, because without the title of the video hinting what is going to happen, one would not be able to set a schema or script to what is going to happen. Not being able to do this would leave an individual unable to understand the joke, but in unintentional physical humor having spontaneity is key to successful physical humor (variable of unpredictability). Yet, one could argue that a schema can be applied or set for what is going to happen if the title is presented in advance.

One thing that really interested me from this chapter was the discussion on computer programs with the ability to create humorous text or jokes. The linguistic component of humor is incredibly important and though the discussion in the text was a little heavy and difficult to read I decided to look for some video's with good linguistic humor; i.e. where language was the source of the joke.

One funny video that is quite old now involves tourists asking a couple Estonian women how to say 'twelve months' in the Estonian language. Twelve months in Estonian is "kaksteist kuud" which sounds in English like something completely different and very funny. This example, short as it is, opens discussion on almost everything we've discussed so far. It brings up issues with aggression/sexuality, incongruity, social topics including group cohesion, and can be explained differently by several competing theories including psychoanalytic, reversal, and schema theories.

Thus far we've learned about several different topics which are common amongst many forms of humor. First, most humor involves an aggressive/sexual component. Second, the humor stems from some kind of incongruity and the continued experience or resolution of it. Third, primarily social in nature, humor often has a tendency to either create group cohesion or establish a playful atmosphere in which people can put down their guard, relax, or act in a non-serious fashion. I'll discuss how this 20 second clip addresses these issues by way of relating the clip to the various types of theory we have learned about.

First are the psychoanalytic and superiority theories. Freud would have a field day with this particular clip. Not only are the women sitting down and looking up (decidedly submissive and sexual body language), and wearing moderately revealing clothing, but the words themselves have an inherently sexual connotation. In psychoanalytic terms we laugh because it allows us to temporarily bypass the demands of the superego and let our Id's experience some good 'ol fashion sexual excitation. We laugh to release the built-up tension. Regarding superiority theories we laugh because of the submissiveness and total ignorance of the women in this video who have no idea what they are saying. Keep in mind this is obviously not what I think is happening only what a superiority (or psychoanalytic) theorist would say.

Although these interpretations are funny in and of themselves, and seem plausible at a first glance I think they overstep their boundaries by making claims about what other people are thinking. Do we really need to think that these women are submissive and ignorant in order to laugh at this? Incongruity theories I think explain the humor in this clip just as well without forcing us into an overly misogynistic interpretation. One interesting fact relates to arousal theory as well. Arousal theory suggests that our arousal follows an inverted-U pattern and that we find things funny up to a point at which point they no longer cause any arousal. If you scroll down and read some of the comments posted about this video you'll see one kid take this overly misogynistic interpretation and comment accordingly. I found this comment rude and offensive, not the least bit funny. Though if it was the aggressive/sexual aspects that cause this to be funny I should find this even more funny shouldn't I? This supports the idea of an inverted-U relationship (which isn't supported by a lot of other research).

I want to spend the rest of the time discussing what schema theory has to say about this because I think it best explains why this is funny and it will also allow me to make some quick references about what other theories have to say about this joke.

This is not really a joke it's conversational humor, which as the text describes is ordinarily more difficult to classify and explain since it tends to lack structure and be spontaneous. This video, although it lacks a specific joke structure, is not spontaneous. The 'setup' involves the cameraman asking the girls to tell him how to say twelve months in their native language. According to schema theory this causes us to call up the 'learning to speak a different language' script (or something similar) in which we expect to hear a bizarre sounding (that is unrecognizable) series of utterances given slowly and ryhthmically (e.g. syllable by syllable).

When we here kaksteist kuud, which sounds phonetically similar to another phrase in our own language a second script is activated. This is similar to what the punch line of a joke would do. Incongruity resolution theories would say that we then laugh because we have resolved the incongruity between our expectation of hearing non-sense, and the actual hearing of a sexual phrase. Or perhaps the incongruity is that we now know that the guy wasn't asking because he didn't know, he was asking because he wanted to hear them say it out loud.

What the second script is depends on how we explain the humor. First, it is unlikely that we would find this funny if someone just asked how do you say twelve months and someone else told us. It needs to be repeated, or misunderstood in someway by the person asking before we really find it funny I think. I think the second script activated is something like a trickster, joker, or manipulator script. In this way it's almost funny because we know that the cameramen find it funny. It would be funny for a different reason if the cameramen were literally trying to find out how to say this without recognizing what it sounds like in English.

These two scripts about learning a language, and tricking someone into thinking you are trying to learn a language represent ongoing incongruity which causes the emotional response of mirth and laughter. I can't help but assume, though I could be totally wrong, that these two terms (twelve months, and what it sounds like) are totally opposite regarding their locations in semantic or 'cognitive space' as outlined by Osgood. If twelve months sounded like 'cheeseburger' or 'hello' for instance, it would be far less funny. Even if it sounded like 'intercourse', 'violence', 'kill you' or some other aggressive or sexual phrase it would seem to be less funny. Maybe Osgood's theory only relates to single word humor and not phrases or multi-word comedy…

The final thing I want to mention is how this gives a good example of just how sophisticated our cognitive perception of humor is. IF we relate this to the topic discussed about computer programs that understand or produce humor we can see just how far we have to go. What would a computer that understood or produced this joke be like? It was mentioned in the book that instead of trying to create a program that specifically creates jokes we are interested in (like this one) we should instead program the computer with a given theory and see what it produces. With examples like this we see why that is probably the better answer.

http://loyalkng.com/2009/05/14/kaksteist-kuud-12-months-estonian-language-proves-ladies-estonia/