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This discussion has been archived.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) 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...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2