Why is funny, funny?

[AugustWest]

OK, to keep this forum from devolving to just a booklist.  Or comic book list, as it were, I thought I'd serve us up a little topic for discussion.

What are the elements of humor?  What makes something funny?

I know, I know, you can't describe it.  I think it was Theolonius Monk who said "Writing about music is like tap dancing about architecture."  Theorizing about humor is probably subject to the same criticism.

But I want to do it anyway.

Here are a few things that make for "teh funnay."

The unexpected.  Much of the genius of Monty Python was their use of the absurd and the unexpected.  Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Cleverness.  Arranging words or ideas in a way that allows for new insight.  Conveying a thought in a witty or artful manner.

Tragedy.  Comedy is tragedy plus time.  Or distance -- i.e. If I fall on the sidewalk and scrape my knee, that's tragedy.  If you slip on a banana peel and break your leg, that's comedy.  Slapstick.

Honesty.  I think one of the reasons comedy is so valuable and rewarding is that it often is the best method to communicate the truth of a situation.  I understand war better from Catch-22 than from any documentary I've ever seen on The History Channel.

I think this is an area where Achewood excels.  Onstad has created well-defined characters and he stays true to them.  Granted, they are comic strip characters, but they're very much real people.  How many people have known a Todd in their lives.  Or Lyle.  The characters are funny because we recognize traits from the folks around us.  Then the characters say things and do things that logically follow from those realistic traits.

That's why a "comedian" like Bob Hope wasn't really funny.  His gags were based on stereotypes and half-truths.  Heh, heh, women are bad drivers.  Huh, huh, politicians are crooked.  Nothing unexpected, no relevance to any real human traits.

Plus, Achewood has a cat that wears a thong.

I'll shut up now.

[jough]

Bob Hope wasn't funny?

You're on drugs, aren't you...

[slink]

It does strike me as likely that the majority of the world's population that found Bob Hope funny, were the ones not abusing some substance or other.
I spent the other day being sooo snide and cynical about him, in the entire newscast he didn't say or do anything funny...
I guess most of what I find funny is very dry, cynical and honest like you said. I guess mostly things I can relate to or relate people I know well to.
If I see a line delivered by someone I can relate to I will probably find it funnier than if it were delivered by someone I have nothing in common with.
I don't know though, it's a tricky one, and having just spent all night redesigning a site and playing with CSS and JScript I can't really express it best right now!
Damn daylight!

[AlohaDawg]

I have to admit that I never thought Bob Hope was particularly funny. Some of his movies have some good moments but just plain old Bob Hope never did it for me. And I was even from his adopted hometown of Cleveland! That doesn't mean he was unfunny. All art is subjective, after all.

I'm not alone: here is an article from today that may offend or interest you: I offer it for your judgment and as fodder for the humor discussion (as opposed to Flame Bob Hope fodder, which is not my intention)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086499/

I think the elements of humor are covered well above but also humor needs to have a certain amount of relevance and universality. That may be one reason Bob Hope doesn't seem funny: a lot of his best one-liners belong in specific places in time and space. He was truly great at capturing moments and making jokes for situations and occasions - they don't seem nearly funny now because they aren't relevant to our place here in time and space. "take my wife....please" (the old Henny Youngman saw)  is always a funny one-liner because it doesn't rely on an awards show or a news item or the place where the joke is being told.

"Who's on First" by Abbott and Costello may well be the funniest comedy bit EVER written and performed in the United States. Tell it to someone who has never been exposed in any way to baseball and you will start to appreciate the value of relevance to humor...

just my late evening opinion for the day....

[AugustWest]

Well, it wasn't really my intent to slam Bob Hope either, although it clearly came across that way.  He was a very charming guy and great at what he did.  Just not so funny in my book.  And I don't think it's a generational thing.  Look at Jack Benny -- same generation, truly funny.

I did read the Slate article you linked and it was part of the inspiration for this post.  The whole "why is Achewood funny and Bob not so funny?" question got me thinking.  

I don't know that I can agree with your "Who's on First" point.  I don't know whether or not it's the funniest US comedy bit or not.  I probably wouldn't rate it number 1, but it'd be in the top ten somewhere.  But that's not my point.

You suggest that "Who's on First" wouldn't be funny to a Briton.  I'm not so sure.  I don't think the humor in the bit relies on baseball knowledge, really.  It's more wordplay.  As long as you could understand that the relative pronouns were being used as people's names, thus causing Costello's frustration, you could understand the humor.  Knowing what Third Base is (I don't know?) or a catcher is, isn't really necessary.

I also think a lot of the humor in "Who's on First" is personality driven.  That is, it's so funny because Abbot and Costello, through their unique and skilled delivery, make it funny.  Some of the funniest parts are Costello's expressions of frustration.

Mmmmm, analyze the comedy bit... not a bad idea for this forum...

[Nabubrush]

Marx Brothers = funny.
Farrelly Brothers =/= funny.

[slink]

I remembered why I realised Hope wasn' funy. I mean it isn't because of this fact but it accentuated it - he had a team of gag writers he took everywhere. He needed other people to make him funny... Yes...

[AugustWest]

Smith Brothers = cough drops
Dr. Joyce Brothers = psychologist

[AlohaDawg]

Very good point on 'who's on first" (despite the fact that I didn't really mention Britons, just people who don't know anything about baseball) in terms of both the phenomenon of relative pronouns and more important to this thread, delivery. The chemistry and delivery makes that bit funny. Two people just reading the lines back and forth deadpan with no timing would be morbidly unfunny even with the same words. (Although it could be funny if Sirajul and Mujibur from Letterman a few years back did it).

So in addition to the sort of structural points made in the first post, we should add the importance of (a) talented deliverer(s).

Language and humor is also an interesting thing to ponder.

I had this great Spanish Lit teacher in college from Spain - his name was Marcelino Marcos. We once took him to a comedy club because he was interested in American humor - I'm pretty sure he didn't get any of the jokes, even though he understood English. Those of you who know Spanish may appreciate the joke he used to say a lot. He thought the funniest exchange in Spanish was the question and answer "How do you eat?" "I eat like I eat"

Como comes? Como como como.

It's even kind of funny if you don't know Spanish....

Discuss.

[jough]

Well, I wasn't trying to really defend Bob Hope, because for the life of me I couldn't tell you ONE of his jokes, whereas someone like David Cross or Mark Mahron, well, there you go.  Or Dennis Miller.

But I just didn't understand why Bob Hope was on the opposite end of the humour scale from Achewood, and of course I was joking about the usual "You disagree with me so you must be on drugs" argument that crops up on pretty much every message board.

You know what I find funny?  That which makes me laugh.

[pmcd9]

Bob Hope is not funny.

He's the Pauly Shore of his era.

~Paul

[AugustWest]

You know what I find funny?  That which makes me laugh.

Well, OK.  But isn't that a tautology?  What makes me laugh?  That which I find funny.

Why does Futurama make me laugh while Full House doesn't?  What's the difference?

It's the spirit of inquiry, baby.  Catch it!

[Nabubrush]

You know what I find funny?  That which makes me laugh.

Why does Futurama make me laugh while Full House doesn't?  What's the difference?

Ummm, ***** characters and giant lobsters? Also, no twins. Twins are never funny.

[revdj]

I think anybody under 40 (including me) has this problem with Bob Hope - we've not seen him at his best.  Bob Hope to us is a guy who would get on stage reading fairly lame jokes off of cue-cards and making "isn't she hot" jokes about people like Brooke Shields.  Of course we see that and think, "What's the big deal?"

It is equivalent to this - I know people who are under 25 (not including me) who occasionally see George Carlin, and think, "What a pathetic man."  His new stuff is objectively not funny - the reason that some of us laugh at it is because he brings back memories of a very clever talented comedian.  Even when a youth listens to old George Carlin albums, they may think, "Oh, so he WAS funny" but they are not going to be laughing as loudly as the people who bought them when they came out.

I think it is unfair to call Bob Hope the Pauly Shore of his day.  He was more like the George Carlin of his day.  Brilliant for his time - his jokes didn't age well - neither did he.

Someone mentioned Jack Benny.  Yeah, Jack Benny was funny until the end of his life.  He was fortunate in that respect.  But that is quite a rare gift.  I think Jon Stewart will be funny when he is 90 years old.   I think Bill Cosby is as funny as he was when he was in his twenties (whether you think he is funny or not - that's up for debate.  But I don't think your opinion would change with time - he's the same ol' Cos)  But I would hate to have to sit through a Joan Rivers set, or a David Brenner set.  They just didn't keep "it."  Nor did Bob Hope, in my opinion.

[CortJstr]

I think anybody under 40 (including me) has this problem with Bob Hope - we've not seen him at his best. Bob Hope to us is a guy who would get on stage reading fairly lame jokes off of cue-cards and making "isn't she hot" jokes about people like Brooke Shields. Of course we see that and think, "What's the big deal?"

I totally agree. When I think of Hope I don't pictures USO shows or road movies, I think of lame network Christmas specials with Hope and washed up actors fawning over washed up women who weren't that attractive in their prime. It's like watching a live-action Tex Avery cartoon without the sight gags.

I think it is unfair to call Bob Hope the Pauly Shore of his day.  He was more like the George Carlin of his day.  Brilliant for his time - his jokes didn't age well - neither did he.

I can see what you mean with some bits. Some of his edgier stuff isn't anymore. I can think of at least 2 of the Seven Dirty Words that you are now able to say on TV. A generation that's more vulgar and permissive in every day life isn't going to be shocked by somebody like Carlin.

Some of his bits are essentially ageless, most notably A Place for My Stuff, and Baseball Vs. Football. And his picking on language is actually making more sense as we come up with more PC terms and retronyms.

But since edgy is his calling card and "kids today" don't find his stuff edgy (and therefore not funny) I can see how they'd want to write off his whole act.