In response to Theo's lead blog post, I think he made a few interesting points. One point that stuck out to me was how he described the unpredictability of Eric Andre himself and how that mirrors the incongruity/relief theory. This show I think actually encompases all three theories very well. For one, the personality and arbitrary actions of Eric Andre already deomonstrate the incongruity theory at work. From another viewpoint, the guests on the show don't know what's going to happen or what to expect from Eric. Because the audience knows the guest's fate, we feel superior to them in a way that we know something they didn't. This also makes room for the relief theory. Even though Andre tends to be somewhat reckless and risky at times with his bits, the audience tends to laugh at the sheer stupidity and hilariousness of the act itself. We laugh because we can feel superior, relief, and even confusion all at the same time. Overall, great lead blog post and support on the theories.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The interesting thing about comedy, in general, is that it's all subjective. What I find hilarious may not even register with someone else as humorous. This same principle is applied to comedy tv shows as well. In response to Jake's blog post, I found some of the points that he raised as interesting. He explained how the show Seinfeld has no overlying plot, and that's what makes it so exceptional. In a way, I agree with him. There is always a time and a place where we just want to laugh, and not worry about keeping up with a detailed plot or keep track of attributes we need to remember in order to understand the show. Seinfeld is definitely that kind of show where you can turn it on and just enjoy the singular episode for what it is. The humor in Seinfeld is a sort of observational comedy, where the premise of the humor is based on going through the motions of everyday life. But referring back to my original point, someone may not be interested in that type of show or hum...
Read more
I personally love The Office and have watched the series multiple times. I also find it interesting that each of the characters plays a specific and important role in the show, providing different types of humor in certain situations that are best fitting for that type of humor. Just how the character of Micheal Scott ties into the Superiority theory of humor. We tend to laugh at Micheal the most because of his childish personality, cringy jokes, and outlandish behavior in and outside of the workplace. Sometimes we may laugh at Micheal because of his silly mistakes or almost violating jokes. But I think many theories can tie into many different characters of the show. I like how Lucy used the character of Micheal Scott to explain the Superiority theory in a way that is easy to understand, especially in a well-fitting setting. It seems that The Office most likely won't come back on air due to its type of humor, and how it may not work in today's society. Overall, the characters...
Read more
I think Alex's blog post does a fine job with relating the three main humor theories to the hit show Friends. I personally found it helpful that each character from the show matched up with a particular theory of humor. This helped me remember the theories in a more in-depth way by relating them to something I already have knowledge about. For Instance, Phoebe aligns with the incongruity theory because of her sporadic jokes and personality, combining concepts and things that normally would not go together. There is one particular episode I remember watching a few weeks ago where Phoebe is playing her guitar alone in the subway station singing "Your love is like a giant pigeon, crapping on my heart". I found this line exceptionally funny because no one would think to associate a giant pigeon and a broken heart. Phoebe's constant use of incongruous ideas as such make her a prime example of what the incongruity theory is all about. The show Friends is an easy comparison...
Read more