It All Makes Sense - The Definition of Comedy

The group work we did in English 404 this Monday was interesting for me. For once in the semester it brought some of our previous work to the table. From watching Charlie Chaplin, reading Ann Stephens, and laughing with Eddie, I was truly starting to wonder if this laughter had a reason. I was starting to wonder if the class had a point. The discussion on Monday was a great way to tie it all together.
We looked at four different theories for the foundation of comedy. By using these men’s’ theories we could organize some of the pieces we have read/heard into their definitions. Whether the theories are good or bad can be directly related to the laughter that is provoked from the works that fall under them. I will go into my theory further, but it surely has some kinks to work out; after all, it’s just a work in regress.
I liked the first group’s dissection of the Woes of Comedy. Essentially, the theory was that comedy is a representation of life itself, based fully on faith not fact. The group argued that the human race will survive and is destined to carry on. To me, this sounds like some sort of philosophical breakdown, but it came full circle when they tied it to an example used in class. By asserting Charlie Chaplin’s movie into this category, the definition came to life. In the film he performs such a miniscule task in order to survive, as the world is figuratively breaking down around him, he manages to keep that mustache filled smile on his face and carry on. He is the comedic example of the survival of man. His association with his co-workers, his boss, technology, and the society around him really stress a funny, but honest, representation of life itself. For me, this type of comedy was funny and thus it supports the definition of the theory of comedy to the fullest.
My group was chosen to breakdown Henri Bergson’s account of humor. He has a few main points in which to define comedy. Laughter seems most useful in groups; it is the social prospect of group laughter towards those who are not behaving in a flexible way. This is an interesting point to bring up. I know when I am in a so-so mood, I have a hard time laughing out loud to The Office. But back home my friends and I would gather every Thursday night to a non-stop laugh-a-thon with every episode. I never quite realized why my computer and I couldn’t laugh like I could with my friends. It makes sense that things are funnier in groups. The second point can be broken down into two parts. A, mechanical inelasticity and B, unconscious comedy. The two are inevitably linked by their character. This persona or character cannot be inelastic and conscious, vice versa. So, I proceed to give an example. In the TV show The Office, both Dwight and Michael Scott exhibit this behavior. First and foremost, they are inelastic because their character never changes, and will never change, based on our laughter. In the show’s case, they will never change based on their co-workers. No matter how much crap they get, how many times they need to be straightened out, they will never change. To me, that is funny. I recommend this show to all because Michael is the boss you never want to have and Dwight is the employee no one wants to work with. Although these characters are clearly unconscious of their actions, I want to relate it to something we have read so far. I conclude the story of the Genuine Mustard Plug falls under this category. For instance, he is ignorant to buy that cruddy horse and after self-speculation, he realizes it too. Bergson says, his character is generally comedic in proportion to the ignorance of himself.
In no way do I think Bergson can be characterized into these two definitions. There is still many more terms he uses that are over my head which are probably extensions of his theory. I believe I captured the essence of his argument but the best way to understand him is to read it for yourself. But for confusions sake, you could probably take my word for it