As a general rule, people
don’t like to be laughed at (unless, of course, they set out to produce that
effect). Humour degrades its target and may threaten the position of that
target as the perpetrator of humour points out weaknesses and insecurities in
character or may reveal underlying purposes, objectives or ruses behind the
manner and style of others.
A humourist may adopt a
certain position of (moral) superiority as he/she reveals truths and takes up a
stance that offers perspective and overview, and certainly does not bow to
automatic or expected respect.
A humourist will
frequently display an irreverent attitude which may shock, but which serves a
purpose beyond immediate amusement and gratification. It may equally offer
dissent or challenge to a commonly held view or an established position or
argument, but it may be more effective than straight counterargument as humour
engages emotion and personal interest far more readily than does mere
intellectual jousting.
In terms of drama and
entertainment, for most people light comedy appeals more than heavy drama,
though a subtle mixing of the two may produce rewarding results. Comic relief
has long been recognised as an essential element in the success of serious
works, offering some degree of escape from what might otherwise be judged an
overly intense experience, while drama and conflict lend weight and value to
what might be considered a pleasant but ultimately vacuous experience.
I would say the key
elements in successful comedy/drama are balance and complicity.
Going back to the 17th
century, Molière’s comedies reveal many of the social ills of his time but also
address several universal social themes such as status, love, parenthood and
faith, to name but a few, but he was always careful to maintain a balance
between gently mocking comedy and touching emotion bordering on tragedy. He
knew the key was to have his audience care for his characters despite their
flaws and so while encouraging laughter at his characters’ misjudgements, he
fosters emotion and sympathy as the audience sees the potentially tragic
results of these misjudgements. To this day, most comedies of note follow a
vaguely similar pattern as they promote an underlying threat of (self) destruction
with regard to their main characters in order to ensure a degree of emotional
engagement on the part of the audience.
Complicity of the
audience through previous knowledge and awareness (which, crucially, may not be
shared with characters in the production being viewed) will also foster
engagement and a sense of “participation” in a production. Just about the
ultimate example of this is “Groundhog Day” in which weathercaster Phil Connors
(Bill Murray) relives the same (Groundhog) day seemingly endlessly, but only
Phil and the audience are privy to the joke.
Much can be achieved
through the medium of humour (or the inclusion of humorous elements) that might
otherwise be less successful or engaging.
At its core, the
above-mentioned “Groundhog Day” is a fable about personal development and
evolution through (eventual) consideration of and selfless service to others.
Such a naive, simplistic and potentially patronising message had to be handled
deftly and with care, and Harold Ramis along with Bill Murray carry it off
wonderfully with a series of strangely comical positive-yet-cynical vignettes. These
trace Phil Connors’ transformation from self-centred careerist through
depressive fatalist and selfish hedonist (willing to use others for his own
ends, but equally depending on them), until finally he achieves fulfilment
through altruistic acts of kindness and help. The lightness of touch ensures we
never dislike Phil (perhaps because he is the ultimate target of the humour of
the film) as we share his responses to his outlandish situation, which the
humorous tenor of the film allows us to accept and enjoy.
Similarly, “One Flew Over
the Cuckoo’s Nest” would undoubtedly have been considerably less appealing and
successful in terms of engagement, sympathy and empathy if it had been
presented as a harrowing battle of wills between a representative of social
repression and one of personal freedom. Humour allowed for the humanisation and
development of the numerous characters involved, and their struggles and
conflicts became all the more touching and affecting because humour encouraged
empathy and a sense of solidarity, ultimately emphasising and clarifying the
division between the two factions and making the end (and the “message”) all
the more effective and moving.
Even the genre of
action/adventure films has been augmented and enhanced by the inclusion of
humour.
The early Bond films
injected a knowing self-awareness and even mockery which added an element of
sophistication and entertainment which many have sought to emulate in other
productions and which has influenced several of the most successful franchises
in cinema history, including “Star Wars”, “Indiana Jones”, “Mission Impossible”
and some Schwarzenegger productions. By incorporating elements of humour in
their storylines, writers lighten the emotional load (in itself essential to
maintain interest) on audiences and yet build emotional engagement with their
characters and draw audiences into their work.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie
