The comedies about which Aristotle writes must be very different from what we call comedies today. This point is clear from the way Aristotle describes comedy, and subsequently imposes many limitations on comedy which I don’t think hold true today. His description of comedy reflects the quality of comedy as art during his time, but I think dramatic changes have been made which make comedy an art form which can reflect beauty.
Aristotle is correct in asserting that comedy is related to the ridiculous. However, his next point that ridiculousness implies ugliness seems harder to support without Aristotle’s teleological view. In class, we discussed possible distinctions between the absurd and the ridiculous. We said that the absurd reflects objects or situations which are impossible or improbable. The ridiculous reflects objects or situations which have useless eccentricity. If comedic material is said to be ridiculous or absurd, in either case this doesn’t necessarily entail ugliness. For Aristotle, beauty has a certain order to it. When people laugh at the ugly, distorted masks on stage, they are laughing as a means of distancing themselves from the ugliness and affirming the values of beauty and order. Modern comedy, however, specifically long-form improvisation has beauty because it includes many of the qualities Aristotle identifies as art, and seeks a combination of order and disorder.
There are many styles of long-form improvisation, but one style begins with an audience interview, then has performers spontaneously create scenes based off the anecdotes given in the interview. These scenes are often related to each other only tangentially, or not at all, but eventually weave together to make a coherent world in the end. The point is, the interview often produces anecdotes which are everyday occurrences, not necessarily disordered or unusual experiences, but it is the attempt to imitate these experiences and create a coherent ordered world which comes off as absurd.
Improv uses plot and narrative in each scene, strives for wholeness in the end, and its length also depends on audience and performer memory. A good performer remembers things from the earlier scenes and includes them in later scenes. Aristotle says the length of a piece of art should be long enough to be held by the audience’s memory. Today, the length of the piece is actually determined by memory. Improv strives for wholeness because it is trying to create a world which holds absurdities. An order which holds disorder. In this sense then, modern comedy can be beautiful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Chris, I like your post, mostly because disagreeing with Aristotle is the dankity dank. That being said, I actually agree with the esteemed philosopher here. I don't really think that comedy can be beautiful: are people laughing at masks because they are distancing themselves, or really because something which is so unlikely that it becomes...ridiculous? I think that's why things are funny, because they are outside an established order. Mitch Hedberg's jokes are funny because a "normal" order of people do not take issue with receipts being given for the purchase of doughnuts and then joke about it on stage; but if you saw a guy harassing a clerk about a receipt at a Tim Horton's in real life, you'd regard it as something incredibly unpleasant. It's the setting which makes it comedy, but the basic nature remains unchanged. I think the same goes for improv: if those situations ever happened without the backdrop of a stage, we would thing they were weird and unpleasant.
ReplyDeleteTrue, the worlds created on an improv stage would not mesh well with the real world. But I think we laugh more because of the logic, or the order of those created worlds. We don't laugh because everything that's going on is just ridiculous! We laugh because there are a few ridiculous themes, but the scenes are played as if it were in a world with some kind of rules. You're right. They're outside an established order, our order, but they still have their own order.
ReplyDeleteStand up is different, but let's take your MH example. He's playing a character who thinks that small purchases don't require documentation. We laugh because that's kind of a good point. We are not, in fact, going to go home and put our receipt in the file under "d" for doughnut. I wouldn't think it unpleasant at all if some one said that to a salesman. I'd probably laugh then, too.
While I was out shouting at a dry cleaner for being closed at 3 AM today, I was considering your point, and I guess you're right (in all honesty, I was watching Last Comic Standing and Greg Geraldo was like, "All good jokes have a surprise." It made me think).
ReplyDeleteI think those surprises that make comedy are out of a traditional order but really, that's kind of the case for almost all comedy in its own tweaked sort of way, and I guess just like we make fun of those people who are so against the mainstream because it's cool to be anti-mainstream, there's a logical kind of order to "funny." Kudos, sir.