Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday May 05 2017, @04:48AM   Printer-friendly
from the funny-or-die? dept.

We're all aware that there are stereotypes. The British are sharply sarcastic, the Americans are great at physical comedy, and the Japanese love puns. But is humour actually driven by culture to any meaningful extent? Couldn't it be more universal – or depend largely on the individual?

There are some good reasons to believe that there is such a thing as a national sense of humour. But let's start with what we actually have in common, by looking at the kinds of humour that most easily transcend borders.

Certain kinds of humour are more commonly used in circumstances that are international and multicultural in nature – such as airports. When it comes to onoard entertainment, airlines, in particular, are fond of humour that transcends cultural and linguistic boundaries for obvious reasons. Slapstick humour and the bland but almost universally tolerable social transgressions and faux pas of Mr Bean permit a safe, gentle humour that we can all relate to. Also, the silent situational dilemmas of the Canadian Just for Laughs hidden camera reality television show has been a staple option for airlines for many years.

These have a broad reach and are probably unlikely to offend most people. Of course, an important component in their broad appeal is that they are not really based on language.

Humor is no laughing matter. Levity can kill. But can it also bind us together?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @04:59AM (17 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @04:59AM (#504681)

    Minstrel shows, blonde jokes, race jokes, and so on. These all point to, indeed, a national sense of humor. And that sense of humor is, always, some representation of the dominant group casting its eyes on the lower classes in some way. Ever notice how people think female comediennes aren't funny compared to male comedians? Sexism ingrained in the culture. Ever notice how the Black guy dies first in B-level horror movies? Racism ingrained in the culture. Ever notice how it's the white guys that aren't always comedic relief in a story? Racism, again.
    Yes, different countries have different senses of humor. And they ALWAYS prey upon the unprivileged peoples within that country. That's why Mr. Bean isn't funny here-- because Britain is much, much less racist than here. Same with other countries-- they are much, much more tolerant and thus have senses of humor which are not so sadistic in nature.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Interesting=2, Touché=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by idiot_king on Friday May 05 2017, @05:01AM

    by idiot_king (6587) on Friday May 05 2017, @05:01AM (#504683)

    Good to know someone gets it!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @05:20AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @05:20AM (#504693)

    Good to know that only racists have a sense of humor.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday May 05 2017, @05:38AM (7 children)

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Friday May 05 2017, @05:38AM (#504701) Journal

    Americans generally fail to get the point of much of British humor - particularly the type of which Mr Bean is an extreme case. At the root of a wide strain in British humor is the horror of embarrassment.

    It is comically outrageous to have situations in which there is someone behaving in the most cringing manner, yet perfectly oblivious to the embarrassing aspect - especially when this obtuseness accelerates the climate. Witness the Python "Cheese Shop" or Cleese's Basil Fawlty.

    Americans, themselves nearly unembarrassably brash, often laugh - yet for substantially different reason.

    --
    You're betting on the pantomime horse...
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 05 2017, @02:32PM (4 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday May 05 2017, @02:32PM (#504867) Journal

      There's overlap. Many Americans appreciate Monty Python and such. Eddie Izzard remains a mystery. But then, Britons probably don't understand Duck Dynasty or Jeff Foxworthy either.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday May 05 2017, @02:54PM (2 children)

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Friday May 05 2017, @02:54PM (#504899) Journal

        Agreed. I tried to make the point that a comedy like "Peep Show" or "The Thick of It" is still funny for Americans, but often for subjectively different reasons. Just compare the respective national versions of "The Office".

        Both yanks and brits enjoy the scatological stream of abuse by Peter Capaldi for its creative and energetic enthusiasm and vitriol. The British have more of a cringeing enjoyment. This is equally true for little embarrassments. Moments which are interpreted as funnier, I think, by British viewers.

        It's telling, that Capaldi's is a Scottish character with working class origins - bringing all the cultural associations that tint a context for his angry profanity.

        --
        You're betting on the pantomime horse...
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 05 2017, @04:02PM (1 child)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday May 05 2017, @04:02PM (#504947)

          It's telling, that Capaldi's is a Scottish character with working class origins - bringing all the cultural associations that tint a context for his angry profanity.

          His character on "The Thick of It?" Capaldi is Scottish in real life.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday May 05 2017, @06:52PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday May 05 2017, @06:52PM (#505078) Journal

        When I first saw an excerpt of Eddie Izzard, I was quite confused. There were a few funny bits, but I wasn't "getting it."

        Then I sat down and watched an entire show of his. I laughed quite a bit. Then I watched a second one and found it one of the funniest things I had ever seen in my life.

        I think this is often just a matter of familiarity with humor conventions. I encountered some of the Python movies when I was young and I liked them because some of my friends walked around quoting them all the time. But then when I first saw Flying Circus I was just confused for a while. After watching a few hours of it, I find it a lot more hilarious.

        But these are all absurdist comedy examples, so it makes a little sense that you need to get the conventions to understand the absurdity. No matter what, though, I don't think I'll ever understand Mr. Creosote in Meaning of Life. I've heard the Pythons interviewed about that scene and many of them say it's the funniest thing they ever made or whatever. To me, it's just gross. (And I'm not generally a fan of bodily function humor, but done well I find it at least amusing... just can't understand Mr. Creosote.) But again, to each his own...

    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday May 05 2017, @06:43PM (1 child)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday May 05 2017, @06:43PM (#505073) Journal

      particularly the type of which Mr Bean is an extreme case.

      See, to each his (or her) own, but I don't know what Mr. Bean is getting all the hate here. I live in and grew up in the U.S. I first encountered Mr. Bean when my blue-collar non-Anglophile forklift-mechanic neighbor told me he had randomly happened upon "the funniest show ever" on PBS one day. (He was not a frequent viewer of PBS; he was just channel surfing.) We watched the next episode together and laughed our asses off.

      Mr. Bean is very basic at its root -- absurdist physical comedy. He's also an adult who acts like a child. I showed some episodes to my 6-year-old a while back, and he laughed more than just about any comedy he's ever watched -- because Mr. Bean looks like a grown-up but behaves like all the "bad" things kids are warned about, as well as failing to recognize basic social norms (again, things kids struggle with). Back in the days when physical comedy and slapstick was more prevalent in American comedy (which it was for generations), I think Mr. Bean would have fared better.

      And Americans are afraid of embarrassment too. If anything, I think Mr. Bean fails for some Americans because it's often too quiet and slow. American physical comedy often tends to be raucous and crazed. Fawlty Towers probably does better with more Americans when it escalates too; Basil Fawlty is certainly everything but reserved.

      • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday May 05 2017, @08:10PM

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Friday May 05 2017, @08:10PM (#505123) Journal

        Agree about Mr. Bean.

        His near Chaplin/Marceau level of silence serves to emphasize the physicality of his situations, versus their social setting. This creates universality.

        The show's opening is a dead giveaway: He's literally dropped onto the Earth, "born yesterday", without the graces or experience to function with niceties required by the environment or society of our world. Bean's misanthropy is a situational response prompted by his utter cluelessness. He is otherwise so solipsistic, that the very idea of other people's existence cannot be presumed to ever cross his mind. Other people are no more or less obstacles between him and his intentions, then are steering wheels or Novocaine!

        It's my guess that this is funny to people in rural China.

        Producing such a character is probably a very British thing, and it's hard to imagine an American Rowan Atkinson - instead there is Steve Carell.

        --
        You're betting on the pantomime horse...
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @06:07AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @06:07AM (#504706)

    Minstrel shows, blonde jokes, race jokes, and so on. These all point to, indeed, a national sense of humor. And that sense of humor is, always, some representation of the dominant group casting its eyes on the lower classes in some way. Ever notice how people think female comediennes aren't funny compared to male comedians? Sexism ingrained in the culture. Ever notice how the Black guy dies first in B-level horror movies? Racism ingrained in the culture. Ever notice how it's the white guys that aren't always comedic relief in a story? Racism, again.
    Yes, different countries have different senses of humor. And they ALWAYS prey upon the unprivileged peoples within that country. That's why Mr. Bean isn't funny here-- because Britain is much, much less racist than here. Same with other countries-- they are much, much more tolerant and thus have senses of humor which are not so sadistic in nature.

    You remind me of the old saying about when everyone around you is asshole, all the time, then maybe it's not actually everyone else who is the problem.

    But by all means, continue on with your crazy rants while observing the world through your lens of racism. It appears to be the only one you have, after all.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @12:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @12:51PM (#504808)

    Ever notice how people think female comediennes aren't funny compared to male comedians? Sexism ingrained in the culture.

    Oh please. Female comedians get plenty of laughs from both sexes but when a man doesn't like a particular one it's usually because the jokes are too woman-centric for him to relate to or the joke was bad and wouldn't have been any funnier coming from a man. Also too many times a female comedian is getting lauded mostly for "daring to be as raunchy as a male one" rather than actually being more clever. I've also noticed a double-standard that annoys me where a woman can get away with telling jokes that would get a man booed by much of the audience these days, apparently domestic violence jokes are somehow funny when it's about a woman beating up her man.

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 05 2017, @03:55PM (4 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday May 05 2017, @03:55PM (#504942)

    female comediennes

    Okay, this is just getting ridiculous.

    A) "Comedienne" is already inherently female. Putting "female" in front of it is just redundant.
    B) Why the hell do we need gender-differentiated nouns for professions anyway? Actor/actress, steward/stewardess, comedian/comedienne--it's pointless and stupid. Just use the un-gendered base version for everybody. Drawing attention to the gender serves what purpose, exactly?

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 05 2017, @04:14PM (3 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday May 05 2017, @04:14PM (#504965) Journal

      B) Why the hell do we need gender-differentiated nouns for professions anyway? Actor/actress, steward/stewardess, comedian/comedienne--it's pointless and stupid. Just use the un-gendered base version for everybody. Drawing attention to the gender serves what purpose, exactly?

      I, on the other hand, find de-gendering everything equally ridiculous. Women should not aspire to be men, nor men aspire to be women. They both bring so much to the human experience, if in different ways. If there's such a thing as a nightmarish gender future, it's androgyny. Actresses should remain actresses, because they're awesome and powerful. "Female actor" is an insipid, pitiful abridgment. Sorcerers exude magic, sorceresses can melt knights at 50 paces. "Female sorcerers" imply lesser creatures that would scamper into a corner to cry.

      Men think differently than women do. Women lead differently than men do. Men stand tall when women shelter. Women show steel when men fall apart. If you torture and contort them to fit in a one-size-fits-all box you lose all of that, and gain nothing.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 05 2017, @04:49PM (2 children)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday May 05 2017, @04:49PM (#504990)

        See, I wouldn't use the term "female actor" either. Just call them an actor; most of the time you can tell what their gender is if you really care by their name.

        Of course men and women are different, I just don't see the need to draw attention to that in e.g. headlines and other passing references. It's like whatever that article was earlier in the week "Black man graduates college" or whatever. Is him being black and male actually relevant to this discussion?

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 05 2017, @04:52PM (1 child)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday May 05 2017, @04:52PM (#504993)

          I suppose it comes down to whether you consider "actor" a gendered term. Is "actor and actress" male and female, or generic and female? I lean towards the former; you, the latter.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 05 2017, @04:54PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Friday May 05 2017, @04:54PM (#504995)

            blarg. vice versa. frack

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"