Humor Theory in Bridesmaids

Paul Feig’s 2011 comedy, Bridesmaids, tells the story of Annie Walker, who’s life is a complete mess, as she prepares for the marriage of her best friend, and only source of happiness, Lillian. Throughout the film Annie fears for her changing relationship with Lillian and because of her fear she makes her situation worse and even more hilarious. Bridesmaids pairs very easily with John Morreall’s theories of humor—superiority, incongruity, and relief—and strongly exhibits each one. 

The Superiority Theory is the idea that humor is anti-social. Superiority Theory goes back to teachings of Plato and Aristotle and is the belief that a person laughs at the misfortune of others because it asserts a person’s superiority over that person. The main use of humor in this film revolves around this theory. Annie’s life is in shambles and it just keeps getting worse as the movie progresses. Throughout the film Annie and Helen are constantly trying to one up each other in order to show their superiority over the other for Lillian’s friendship. Another major way in which the Superiorty Theory is seen in Bridesmaids is through the twins, Brynne and Gil. Brynne is constantly reading Annie's diary and when confronted about it she states, "At first I did not know it was your diary, I thought it was a very sad handwritten book." 

The Incongruity Theory is the idea that humor is irrational. The idea behind the Incongruity Theory is that we laugh at things that surprise us because they do not seem to fit the situation. The character that strikes me as revolving the most around the Incongruity theory is Megan. Megan is a constant surprise the entire film. Whether she is suggesting beating up Lillian for her bachelorette party or taking eight more party favor puppies than she should have, Megan is a constant source of unexpected humor. This unexpected humor starts to become expected of her up until she becomes the voice of reason for Annie when the have their life talk. 

Finally, the Relief Theory is the idea that humor is a pressure valve. The Relief Theory says that the act of laughter relieves some sort of nervous energy within us. The movie itself can start producing some feelings of nervousness of just a general sense of discomfort for the incredibly awkward occurrences. The bathroom scene at the bridal store is one of the most cringe inducing scenes of the entire movie but it is also one of the funniest. 

Classic Comedy: The Philadelphia Story & Humor versus Tragedy

The Philadelphia Story, a movie that won two Oscars and was nominated for four more, has been regarded as an adult comedy classic. The film has such infamous stars as Katharine Hepburn (“Tracy Lord”), James Stewart (“Macauley Connor”), and Cary Grant (“C.K. Dexter Haven”) as its leads and makes use of their dramatic talent to serve a comedy that would not necessarily be classified as such among the comedies of today. Rather, The Philadelphia Story is a “comedy of manners” as a play would be classified.

Comedies of manners focus themselves on the upper class, the very wealthy and well-off of society. The comedy comes into play as Morreal discusses in Comic Relief as the audience feels superior to the characters. From the very first scene the audience is meant to feel certain superiority without guilt as Cary Grant pushes Katharine Hepburn to the ground, clearly behaving abhorrently for the time. Then the audience is introduced to the further cast of characters and despite the given information that they are upper class, from the visuals of the mansion and references to different parlors, Mrs. Lord, mother of Tracy and Dinah, spells omelette and “o-m-m-e-l-e-t” providing a chuckle out of a more literate audience that the 1940s had produced. There is no laugh track that modern sitcoms might have used, no direction to what is funny, and much like a classic play, the audience must decide what is humorous.

The comedy isn’t always as clear, with dramatic and meaningful criticisms for Tracy Lord, the quintessential image of a beautiful, rich American woman of the upper class. These critical monologues/dialogues come from four of the most important men in her life, all sounding alike in their vocabulary yet inflection changing “goddess” from complement to scathing criticism.

The audience is not told whether to laugh at these dramatically ironic diatribes, but is only given musical cues of soft, sweet melodies and her reaction being driven to drink. Perhaps the only reason this could be called a comedy in the end, as it follows a similar path to a tragedy (a figure on high is brought low by tragic events) is that much as has been observed by readers of Shakespeare, oft paraphrased as the only difference between a comedy and a tragedy is a comedy ends in marriage aka Tracy and Dext, or in death, yet to be seen in sequels.

image source

How serious comedy can be

The Hangover is the typical movie that makes you laugh at some of the ridiculous events that take place in it. The interesting thing about the movie is that it manages to tackle some serious topics but in a way that we find enjoyable. This includes Zach Galifianakis’ character displaying obvious signs of mental illness as well as the possibility of death such as when Alan’s dad has a heart attack. When you think of the movie The Hangover, you don’t usually think of it having important messages in it, just that it is a movie where ridiculous things happen to make you laugh. But comedy is a great way of tackling issues from a perspective that makes it easier to grasp. In the reading Humour, Truth and Human existence, it discusses how laughter and humour is a great way to open up new ways of seeing the world and making sense of it, “we have a special affinity for jokes that highlight some fundamental fact of our existence because such jokes enable us to confront these truths in a non-threatening, amusing manner”.

There are several cases in The Hangover that we laugh at Alan and his absurdity. He is consistently made fun of by the other characters. He wants to feel part of the group, and not a loner and because of this a string of hilarious events occur such as accidentally getting drugged, losing their friend and so much more. All of this happens because Alan is trying to fit in, and the others don't quite understand him. If anything, they dislike him for most of the movie. Yes, Alan is a fictional character, but there are plenty of people out there like him, just lacking as many crazy events, "humor amuses people because it highlights the essential connection between tragedy and comedy in our lives. Humor, in other words, is powerful when it calls our attention to the comical aspects in those situations that are really sad or disturbing".

Every year, about 42.5 million American adults (or 18.2 percent of the total adult population in the United States) suffers from some mental illness, enduring conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, statistics released Friday reveal. I can list facts out like that, but it will not capture peoples attention the way a humorous situation will. Hearing that someone needs to take their medication to prevent an episode does not stick in your ind the way it does when Alan's dad tells him he needs to take his medication after stealing and accidentally decapitating a giraffe on a freeway. 

I think it is important to look at comedic movies and ask what the purpose of that comedy is. Sometimes a joke can actually be a way to open an important discussion on a current situation whether personal or a global event. It is crucial to keep an open mind and to dig deeper into the hidden meaning of a joke, whether in a comedy film, a talk show or even one on one with someone else. From personal experience I can definitely say that sarcasm and jokes help when I'm down or in an uncomfortable position. Humans use laughter as a unique way of approaching different obstacles in life.

Caddyshack is a Laughing Matter

            “Comic Relief” by Morreall lays out three theories of humor, superiority theory, relief theory, and incongruity theory. The movie “Caddyshack” has elements of all three of these throughout. The superiority theory explains the humor people find in other’s inferiority. People enjoy feeling as though they are the superior to others. The relief theory explains the need for humor to relieve nervous energy or tense situations. The incongruity theory can be explained as the things that are not expected or do not fit within the situation. They are often in situations when you are expecting a certain response or action to happen and another occurs.

You can see the superiority theory in the movie through almost all of Al’s actions. As soon as he arrives at the country club, he tips the valet and also gives him an additional tip while telling him to put on some weight. He often addresses the employees of the club in this manner.  He is expressing the superiority people often feel to the people who are employed at the location we are at. Carl also shows the superiority theory through his interactions with the gopher. He acts as though he is the gophers superior but in reality, the gopher continues to outsmart him. This situation makes those watching feel as though Carl is inferior to themselves. These are just a few examples of the superiority theory played out throughout “Caddyshack.”

When the judge comes into the locker room, he remarks to an employee that a car needs to be towed because it is parked in his spot. This is a tense scene due to his negativity to others around him. In the background, we see a gentlemen in a towel get up quickly and run own to move his car. In this scene, the relief theory can be seen. People are uncomfortable with the judge’s unnecessary negativity to all around him so they use humor to relieve the tension. This theory can also be seen when the judge makes an inappropriate joke about religion and race to a priest. After this joke, the black employee begins doing the task he was asked to do, buffing the judge’s shoes, and an absurd amount of smoke is created causing relief.  The relief theory can be seen throughout the movie; these are just a couple examples.

In the very beginning of the movie, Danny’s father asks a child at the breakfast table in his home, “Who are you?” This situation could be explained using the incongruity theory. You would not expect someone to not know a child who is in their home eating breakfast with them. Another instance you can see the incongruity theory is when Danny is talking to Ty about the lumber yards in which Ty owns. Danny points out that Ty does not spend much time at either of them and his response is that it’s because he doesn’t know where they are. You would imagine someone that owns a business or even two knows where the business is located. These are just a couple examples of the incongruity theory that can be seen in “Caddyshack.”

What is your quest?

"To find the Holy Grail!"

Monty Python and the Holy Grail is without a doubt an absurd film. Showing it to someone for the first time is almost a religious experience. Their facial expressions are enough to make the movie somehow even funnier.

I think the reason for this is the sheer absurdity of the movie's humor. From the beginning credits, the movie sets its own hilarious tone. From then on, one should expect the unexpected. And the unexpected is exactly. According to Morreall, this movie would especially follow the the Incongruity Theory. Every part we laugh at is absurd and goes against what's considered normal human behavior.

For example, when the Black Knight has his arm cut off, the normal reaction would be to give up and concede the fight. However, he says it's "but a flesh wound" and continues harassing King Arthur. This line is hilarious to us because it makes absolutely no sense. Clearly a severed arm is far more than a flesh wound, but for some reason it doesn't bother the knight.

Another perfect example is the bunny. Normally bunnies are very cute and would rarely bite anyone. And yet, the fearsome beast inside the cave is a really, really scary bunny. And it's hysterical. The men scoff saying he couldn't hurt them, then the bunny goes ham and kills several people. Afterwards, it's seen happily hopping around munching on grass. The scene is once again, incongruous with what we consider normality.

The idea of humor needing tragedy in order to exist that Gordon talks about is also present in this movie. Death is treated very lightly in it, but it's still there. Oftentimes, when someone dies it either happens during or right before a very funny moment, almost as if to distract us from what's happening. For example, a couple people die during the "fight" with the Frenchmen at one castle. However, the Frenchmen are chucking live animals instead of boulders at King Arthur and his men, so the deaths are overlooked.

Another example of this is when the young woman is accused of being a witch. The whole thing is actually very terrible as they eventually drag her off to be burned, but the logic with which they conclude she's a with is simply ridiculous. As a result, we're too busy chuckling over that to worry too much about her fate.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a movie that completely focuses on the absurd. This is what makes it so hilariously funny. Everything from the opening credits to the conclusion of the movie goes exactly the opposite it's supposed to, leaving the audience in stitches for the majority of its run time.

Rabbit attack!

Trading Places

The subject matter of Trading Places could easily be a harsh drama showing the stark contrast between the life of the extremely wealthy and those considered in the lower class. However, I think that, like the reading would suggest, that the movie’s message on this is more powerful as a comedy. While much of the movie is exaggerated for the sake of comedy, the exaggerations strike a truth that most of the audience will recognize. For instance, Eddie Murphy’s character is shown early on to be a scoundrel pretending to be a blind, cripple, veteran, yet this is not the reason he is thrown into jail. It is his appearance as a lower class black man who accidentally bumped into someone and picked up his brief case that does it. The racist fears of Winthrop are so obvious that it is comedic.

The film Trading Places raises up the question of what ultimately shapes a person more, their environment or their heritage. It does this in a comedic experiment/bet by the two super rich Duke brothers. The notion in itself is absurd which of course is a root of a lot of the comedic moments, however the absurdity allows us to really consider the idea. The film clearly shows that Valentine is capable of maintaining a successful and wealthy lifestyle regardless of his skin color. Yet while the “environment” wins the bet between the brothers the movie shows that things are not that simple. It reminds the audience that these people are more than their circumstance or genetics by humanizing/victimizing them. We sympathize with both Winthrop and Valentine because their lives are being toyed with over a one-dollar bet.

 I think like the Gordon reading suggests that a lot of the humor of this movie comes out of tragedies of the class divided. Specifically, the line in the reading that humor allows those suffering from such tragedy to look at themselves more humorously rather than wallowing in the negative. Because of this I believe the movie is attempt to weaken that class divided and bring people together. Ultimately both the upper class Winthrop and the lower class Valentine choose to work together to get back at the clearly evil Duke brothers. Because while both Winthrop and Valentine are not saints they are allowing themselves to become victims of the environment both at the beginning of the movie and when the trade places. But together they are able to achieve success through cooperation. 

Morreall's Holy Grail

For most people watching a comedic movie is nothing more than a easy way to feel better or simply get away from the complexities of life with a ridiculous fictional world and people.

Though, after reading the work of John Morreall, I don’t think if I’ll ever only see a comedy as just a ridiculous jab in the world of film again. The veil of simple and immature jokes seem to hide a whole deeper understanding to what it means to make people laugh. Of which entails Morreall’s first section on the anti-social humor theory of “Superiority”. He quotes Plato in the saying that the Guardians of the state should avoid laughter, “for ordinarily when one abandons himself to violent laughter, his condition provokes a violent reaction” (Morreall 4). This makes the point that humor holds as one of most significant and pure human emotions one can experience. But his superiority theory in itself states that the humor people enjoy in this aspect is in the delight in the shortcomings of people we watch on screen.  I personally never thought of myself as a horribly rude person that would kick someone when they’re down, but as Morreall shows in his essay, that’s exactly what we find so funny in most of these comedies. He proves this exactly by saying “we relish the events that show ourselves to be winning, or others losing, and if our perception of our superiority comes over us quickly, we are likely to laugh (6).

Outside of being a horrible person for laughing at those below you, Morreall also discusses the theory of incongruity in humor. He explains this theory as the unexpected and unpredictable actions within a joke. Most individuals have an understanding on what most logical actions in most encounters with others could and usually are. Though, Morreall compares the quotes of several philosophers to come to the understanding that absurd, illogical, and exaggerated situations seem to be the funniest situation for a human to observe. This comes from a regular individual’s set mental perceptions and understandings. So the outlandish and off-the-wall humor from most comedic films, hits the viewer with so much absurdity and comedic value.

This theory of absurdity and exaggeration is exactly where the 1975 film Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes into play. This particular film, being one of my personal favorite for practically my entire life, and similarity to many other people in the last 30 years. The entire film almost solely bases itself on the concept of the Incongruity theory that Morreall presents. Because it’s familiar setting as a King Arthur/medieval story, the incorporation of everything for coconuts instead of horses and a band of knights, that only proclaim “Ni!” and demand shrubbery from those they encounter. The films finds its own brand of humor from the absolute absurdity and unexpectedness of what one would encounter and think of from King Arthur’s world. This film shows the exact concept of the absurdity of humor and the frustration in breaking preset patterns of human action. 

The Hilarity of Absurdity

Monty Python and the Holy Grail is an absolutely absurd comedy film which never fails to make me laugh. I always laugh at the same parts, no matter how old I am. After watching this movie for like the tenth time in my life and reading the assigned readings on humor, I am able to discover as to why this movie is so hilarious and timeless.

In Tomas Kulka's essay The Incongruity of Incongruity Theories of Humor, he mentions three theories: the Superiority, the Relief, and the Incongruity theory. Most of Kulka's essay is focused on how the Incongruity theory is the most popular of the three theories at the present "mainly because its rivals are considered discredited" (321). He defines the Incongruity Theory as one that "maintains that the object of amusement consists in some kind of incongruity and that laughter is an expression of our enjoyment of the incongruous" (320-321).

Understanding the word 'incongruity' is essential in analyzing the humor in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Kulka uses the Oxford English Dictionary to provide a better understanding of the assigned meanings of the word 'incongruous'. The three generally assigned meanings of the word 'incongruity' are disagreement in character, absurdity, and want of harmony of parts or elements (323).

Now after watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail and reading Kulka's essay, one can see how the Incongruity Theory is significant to the film's humor. I'll provide two examples, although there are a multitude of examples of incongruous humor throughout the film. The first example is how King Arthur and his 'Knights of the Roundtable' all ride invisible horses. Their servants or slaves clash coconuts behind the Knights as they do their best to simulate a galloping horse. This is an example of 'absurdity'.

Another example would be Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot, whose jester lauds and sings hymns of how brave Sir Robin is. Yet, when Sir Robin and his entourage are faced with a battle he cowardly avoids a confrontation. The is an example of a disagreement in character, since Knights are suppose to be chivalrous and courageous.

We also see in John Morreall's essay Comic Relief how Morreal analyzes how breaking social conventions can generate humor. Morreal provides a historical example of this depicting that in Medieval times at the Franciscan Church in Antibes, that people (in order to make fun of the current social conventions of the time) would hold their prayer books upside-down, wear spectacles from orange peels, and use burned soles of old shoes as incense to mock the religious clergy.This is clearly shown throughout Monty Python and the Holy Grail. A specific example of this would be where the film mocks religious clergy by showing chanting Monks going through a village hitting their heads over and over again with a piece of wood.

Ultimately, the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail is an absurd film, which is hilarious...And it is hilarious, because it is so absurd. 

Monty Python and the.. What is Happening in this Movie!

            In “Comic Relief,” John Morreall says, “When we’re out for a laugh, we break social conventions right and left,” and the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail does just that. There is literally no possible way to describe this movie. This was my first time watching it, and I’m pretty sure my mouth was hanging open half the time and the other half, I was doubled over in laughter. Nothing makes sense! People pretend to ride horses, when they are actually just galloping and hitting coconuts together and claim that people are witches if they weigh the same as a duck. Social norms do not exist in this movie. In fact, the characters in the movie would be made fun of if they attempted to abide by social norms in any way.

            After reading “Comic Relief,” I think the humor theory that most relates to this movie is the Incongruity theory. As mentioned before, nothing makes sense. There honestly really isn’t a plot, and the events that occur in the movie in no way relate to each other. Everything humans expect to happen does not occur in this movie. For example, the characters act as if pretending to ride a horse is completely normal. No one ever once questions it or is ever fazed by it. They speak to a cartoon God, as if that is an everyday occurrence. Also, the police come at the end, which completely goes against the medieval, King Arthur setting the audience expects. Morreall says, “the core meaning of ‘incongruity’ in standard incongruity theories is that some thing or event we perceive or think about violates our normal mental patterns and normal expectations.” Everything from the setting to the character’s actions violates our normal expectations in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. While the characters are those from the tales of King Arthur, they in no way fight with honor, save the damsel in distress, or compete in various battles. Animals are tossed off of castles as weapons and knights constantly repeat the word “Ni.” And yet, it is the movie’s ability to make absolutely no sense and to go against every social norm that keeps the audience laughing.

            Just as Morreall discusses in his article, humans are drawn to what they do not expect. Aspects that go against social norms keep people laughing. Many comedies include incongruous aspects for this very reason. One particular comedy that comes to mind is Mrs. Doubtfire. The main character dresses as a woman babysitter to see his children. This is something very unexpected and is the main reason the movie is so funny to watch. However, the movie also has aspects that are expected, such as the father’s love for his children, the mother’s desire to keep her children safe, and the typical story of a father who works too much. The beauty of Monty Python and the Holy Grail is that literally nothing about it is expected. It is so unexpected, there is basically no plot, and all movies have plots! When you really think about it, it almost seems strange that people even find the movie funny, as everything that occurs is completely unrelated and the jokes are a bit cheesy when you think about it, especially for older audiences. One of the characters makes a joke about “farting in someone’s face.” This phrase is incredibly overused. Even the most famous line, “your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries,” has no meaning what so ever! However, just as Morreall discusses, the fact that every aspect of this movie makes no sense and does not relate, keeps people laughing. Regardless of the fact that it really has no overall theme or plot, people enjoy the movie because it allows them to view something that has no logic.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail’s success comes from the fact that it uses the Incongruity theory throughout the entire film. It chooses situations people are familiar with and makes them completely absurd. I remember watching the scene where the characters accused the woman of being a witch. I was suddenly brought back to when I learned about the Salem Witch Trials in high school and began wondering what they were going to do to her. Imagine my surprise when they compared her weight to a duck! Monty Python and the Holy Grail allows people to laugh through, basically, the entire movie because every aspect of it is random and different than both everyday life and than what is expected in particular settings. So, if you’re looking for not only a laugh but also total and utter randomness, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is for you!    

Humor and Wealth

We’ve been taught for so long that talking about money is a big no-no. But how do we talk about the 12.1% poverty rate in America? With it clearly in the teens, there’s still an issue we need to discuss. Humor is an attempt to get us talking. I laughed at the funny parts in Trading Places, but I was left with an overall theme: disparity of wealth. With homeless people living out on the streets, it’s hard to ignore the problem. So how will humor help?

“We were so poor, one time someone asked why we were kicking a tin can down the street and we told them that we were moving.”

Like Gordon wrote, humor can have an educational impact without offending anyone. In the joke above, we get a sense of that reality. While it’s funny and draws a laugh, the educational message here is that people really do live in terrible conditions that could compare to a tiny, old tin can. Humor allows you a break from the illusion of perfection and tell you that it doesn’t actually exist. Not everyone lives in New York City with a butler and a constant food source. People are struggling to get their food and decide where their next warm bed is located.

“We were so poor we would go to KFC and lick other people’s fingers.”

There is a grotesque problem in America that people are trying to ignore by rejecting the reality of its existence. Humor is able to throw that back into your face. Society is left with feelings of intense guilt because we get the joke. In the joke above, it’s hard to ignore the fact that this is making a statement about the lack of money for food. One of the theories that Morreall mentions is the relief theory of humor. It’s stated that, “laughter functions only as a release of excess nervous energy” (p. 16). So what are we nervous about here? That we eat while others starve. On the other hand, this theory can also be due to the guilt we face from not being able to solve this problem. Maybe we’re thinking, “Can anything truly be done?” Maybe that’s where our guilt stems from – we are laughing to release the guilt we feel from being helpless. We want to provide assistance, but we are one of few and the less-wealthy are of many. We laugh as a way to relieve our guilt and nerves.

“I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty.”

So why do we laugh at this joke if it doesn’t seem to make sense? The incongruity theory states, “human experience works with learned patterns” (p. 10). In America, we’ve all learned about the “American Dream.” It basically guarantees that if you get a job and work, you’ll be able to afford that white picket fence. Yet, this joke causes warning signs to pop up. Someone working up to a state of extreme poverty? Impossible, right? Wrong. You have people who have amazing, well-paid jobs that suddenly lose them and are thrown into poverty. Then you also have some people who work so hard at their job, but they never get promoted to help their growing debts. It’s incongruent to us that someone can’t reach the dream we’re all so fond of, so we laugh to make sense of it all.

Still, overall, it seems wealth has pretty much fit every theory. It really got me thinking about all the poverty rates. Even with humor, we may laugh, but are we really changing? 

I'll bite your legs off if you don't watch this film!

“Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!” Wait… what?! If you don’t know where that iconic movie quote is from then you’re missing out. Monty Python and the Holy Grail may be one of the dumbest movies on the planet, but it has some hilarious moments. The best comparison to the reading I can make is John Morreall and the Incongruity Theory in “Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor.” If you’ve ever seen this film, I believe you would agree.

Morreall brings up the point that many say that using the word “incongruity” only works for some things due to the meaning of the word. Incongruity, in the point that Paul McGhee makes, for films such as Monty Python it means “’something unexpected, out of context, inappropriate, unreasonable, illogical, exaggerated, and so forth.’” This film is ALL of those things. For example, in the opening credits of the film where it states the filmmakers, actors, and the like, there are subtitles supposedly in another language. If you pay close attention to those subtitles you begin to see that they aren’t in another language, just a strange font. At one point, the subtitles say, “A moose once bit my sister…No really! She was carving her initials on the moose with the sharpened end of an interspace toothbrush given to her by Svenge – her brother-in-law – an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian movies: ‘The Hot Hands of an Oslo Dentist’, ‘Fillings of Passion’, ‘The Huge Molars of Horst Nordfink’…” Obviously, just from seeing this part, if you haven’t seen any other part of this movie, you can tell that it’s going to be very silly. This is the unexpected part of the Incongruity Theory.

Here’s one more for you from the first scene of the movie. This one coincides with, I guess you could say, the illogical aspect of this theory. In this scene, you hear clopping sounds similar to that of a horses hooves. It just so turns out that it isn’t a horse, but one of King Arthur’s men, known as Patsy, clapping two halves of an empty coconut together. This scene is one of the best in the movie. It’s so insanely illogical and dumb, but it’s definitely worth the watch. The following dialogue between King Arthur and the guard on top of the castle make it even better. I won’t spoil it though, you’ll have to watch it for yourself.

PLEASE! Take the time to watch this movie, you will not regret it! My parents and I quote it all the time! :)

gif 1: https://giphy.com/gifs/monty-python-favorite-movies-and-the-holy-grail-fLa2pULjWnDxu
gif 2: https://giphy.com/gifs/reaction-crazy-monty-python-Zb4Cwdpub5g0U

South Park the Great Teacher

          Humor is one of the more interesting topics within the philosophical world due to its wide range that it covers. It can be used as a tension release to lighten the mood, entertain a crowd, a way to inform, and overall bring people closer to each other. People who laugh together stay together. Humor/Comedy has historically always been the inverse of its counterpart Tragedy. They are two sides of the same coin in a way, and both are equally important in the process of communicating ideas. 

          In his writings in "On Humor," Critchley discusses how comedy is effective and why it is so by providing three different theories. The first one is the superiority theory which states that laughter and comedy displays feelings of superiority over a specific group or person; this theory is not universally believed in and not widely accepted. The next theory is the Relief theory which states that laughter is just a mechanism of releasing nervous energy from within, and this usually happens when there is high amounts of tension/pressure. People are always looking for a reason to laugh, especially when something serious is going on. Everybody can think of a specific example of this, where the tension was so thick that you could cut it and then somebody makes a joke and the mood lightens again. The final theory discussed was the Incongruity theory which states that laughter arises from things that are incongruous, or do not go together in a way that makes sense to us in our minds. This theory is universally accepted. This also explains why the punch lines of jokes work so well, because the punch line is something our minds did not expect and we laugh as a result. 

          The movie South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut is a film that perfectly displays the Incongruity theory as well as makes a commentary about a social issue through crude humor and satire. Most of the movie was just scene after scene of jokes and situations that were incongruous with each other that all I could do is laugh. The movie for the most part pokes fun at American parents as well as people in general for blaming the problems that they go through on everyone but themselves by giving a storyline so out of this world that it strongly conveys its message. It does something that many mediums cannot do, which is make people laugh hysterically. And one might think, how does a cartoon with so many cuss words, crude jokes, and over the top humor teach a lesson? This is just proof that laughter can break down barriers and open people up to conversation/discussion they won't usually have. By making it so hyperbolic, it is easy to see what specifically they are making fun of. During this movie I was constantly thinking to myself, why does this describe America so perfectly but yet be so funny. I can think of plenty of examples of parents blaming everything but themselves on why their kid turned out so rotten. Violent TV shows are why my child fights all the time, surely not because you haven't taught them correctly and raised them with correct values. Another comparison can be made to the person that says my life is terrible because of such and such people and I am going to solely blame them for my misfortune. It also had underlying social issues that were not as widely shown, but were still there such as race. 

          This movie's overall purpose was to entertain people with a satirical story line that has underneath it a message that is conveyed with comedy. Was this message the overall most important thing in this movie and should it be taken with utmost seriousness? Absolutely not, but one thing South Park has always been good at is showing the incongruity in real life situations and just puts them in cartoons. Maybe the everyday man will be more informed and better off if they just watch more South Park.