Are They Even Alive?

One of my favorite childhood television shows was (and continues to be) Courage the Cowardly Dog.  I'm not sure why this show was so entertaining and satisfying to me because even now when I watch it, I am completely creeped out. I laugh at the differing attitudes between Eustace and Muriel and the crazy plots always amuse me. Maybe I was a creepy kid? Who knows.

I think this show was so successful because of how shocking it always was. Every episode had a crazy plot with unsettling characters and unnatural colors. I would suggests that the main theory of comedy that applies to this television show is the incongruity theory. The combination of two unlike scenarios creates a sense of humor, bordering on the comical but not quite. This show often has enough humor to keep an audience engaged but not enough to be deemed an outright funny show.

Here is a link to a clip of Courage: The Great Fusilli

This scene perfectly illustrates how the entire show is full of shocking scenarios. From the colors to the sounds, Courage the Cowardly Dog is a mix of creepy and engaging. Even the visual aspects of the show are unnerving and abstract. Courage is a great show and I recommend it to anyone who thinks they have tough skin.

Lead Blog: Goodnight, Sweet Prince

A recent event that has our country up in arms and the government scrambling for support is the death, no, murder of the beloved gorilla Harambe. For those of you who aren’t entirely clear about the story of Harambe, here is a brief explanation. Harambe was a gorilla who lived in the Cincinnati Zoo. He was fatally shot after he was deemed a threat to a three-year-old boy fell into his habitat. This situation has raised protests from several different groups. The loudest and most vigilant group has been the animal rights activists, who argue that the shooting of Harambe was completely uncalled for and another solution could’ve been brought about by other means. A second group has been putting heat on the Cincinnati Zoo for housing Harambe in an inadequate habitat, allowing for such a situation to arise. A third group has been pointing fingers at the parents, saying that they are guilty of neglecting their child; how else could a three-year-old find his way into the habitat of a gorilla?

          

  This brings me to my topic for the week: Harambe memes and their effect on all of us. I have found all of these memes to be especially hilarious, as all memes typically are. I think that the Harambe memes resonates specifically with Freud’s take on the relief theory. Freud suggests that humor is caused from societal tension and repression, resulting in the release of nervous energy. The relief theory allows for us to be able to laugh at the memes and, indirectly, at the death of this poor gorilla because of the building tension in the country. The population is able to laugh in order to distance themselves from the real problem: animal cruelty.

            The premature humor that the memes have been able to conjure makes me think that maybe there is a taste of underlying incongruity theory in the memes. Hutcheson’s incongruity theory places two unlike metaphors beside each other and the contrast between the two provides a shock factor. I think that the shock factor in the memes comes from the contrast between the serious pictures of Harambe beside a humorous phrase that doesn’t directly go with the picture.

My question is this: How did we get to a point where we are able to laugh at the unlawful and violent death of an innocent animal? I admit that I’ve at least chuckled at every Harambe meme I’ve seen. But with this humor shouldn’t there be a pang of guilt? This seems like a good example of how we’ve become desensitized to certain types of inappropriate humor. I know that this is getting a little deep about meme about a gorilla, but I think that it is able to accurately represent how comedy has really just spiraled down a hole. A hole where, at the bottom, there is vulgarity and overriding desensitization.

Lead Blog Response 9/9/16

I love Key and Peele and this is by far one of their funniest clips. I really enjoyed how you were able to coherently relate all three of the theories to the clip! I definitely felt the presence of the incongruity theory and the superiority theory right off the bat. The incongruity theory was most prominent to me because of how absurdly wrong the substitute pronounces the names. It really is shocking how a person can get a name like Blake so off. I see the superiority theory for the substitute because I do feel slightly superior to him. I feel like if I was given that attendance sheet, I could pronounce 98% percent of the names with no problem. It was harder for me to relate the relief theory to the clip at first, but after reading your explanation of how it fits in I can definitely see how it played in. My opinion is that this clip operates around racial humor, specifically black humor. The substitute is talking with a “ghetto” accent and is pronouncing generic white people names incorrectly. This is making an indirect reference to how black people name their children with unique and complex names. The whole clip is tied together by Timothy (tim-OH-thee) who, when his name is called, answers with a hearty present (pree-SINT). I’m not sure what theory that would fall under. Maybe superiority because it is making fun of another culture? Or maybe it falls under incongruity because racial humor always presents itself with a shock factor?

Lead Blog 9/9/16

Copied Response from 9/2 Lead Blog post

Thank you so much for choosing this clip for analysis! I love Seth McFarlane so I personally found it amusing. I thought the clip was funny because of how it created an obviously inaccurate depiction of the people, places, and things associated with Boston. For example, the clip references the fact that the only good and popular pictures of Boston contain an aerial shot of Fenway Park which is not true at all. I definitely agree with you that the superiority theory is most apparent in this clip. I think that although the superiority theory is the most prevalent of theories in modern comedy, it definitely is the trickiest to use. It is a two-faced theory; on the one hand it can be funny in the way it puts shade on a person, place, or thing. However, the other side of the superiority theory is offensive and apathetic towards the beliefs, ethnicity and morals of others. The superiority theory always has the potential to be taken too far and almost any joke has the potential to offend at least one person. I also thought that towards the end of the clip when McFarlane was shot in the head in every scene that he starred in, the incongruity theory was at work. McFarlane getting shot repeatedly was certainly a surprise to me and I thought that it matched up well with the incongruity theory. I really liked your comment associating Freud’s “Humour” to the clip. Freud definitely makes a point that humor is almost like a shield, protecting the psyche from pain and suffering. Maybe McFarlane was trying to “ward off the suffering” of Boston (i.e. it’s crime rates and poverty) by creating this parody. My response to your question about a joke “scale of offensiveness” is that it would be a difficult device to implement. I can’t personally imagine a way to measure offensiveness without having a slight bias towards or against the joke in question. Maybe if specific universal guidelines were put into place? Also, if a scale like that was implemented, it would put a restriction on the type of jokes people would be able to make. It sounds like it could have been put into place by Big Brother himself from Orwell’s “1984”. I really enjoyed reading through your analysis and dissection and thank for sharing such a cool clip!