It bothers me a little when a “random comedian” comes out and describes their “theory of humor” as being “pain.”
Usually it is an “established” entertainer – and they present the idea that “all humor is based on pain” as being a form of received wisdom.
Obviously anytime the word “all” creeps into the discussion the chances of the statement in question being 100% correct is small.
Along the same path – someone recently tried to argue that “Star Wars” was “woke” from day 1 – and, well, my response is dotted line connected to the above …
Life
The idea of “stress” as a negative force in daily life has been around for years. Someone in a “big business marketing department” came up with a slogan about “reducing stress” as a way to sell soap/soup/something else – but “stress” is not inherently positive or negative.
The human body has a generic “stress response” but our perception of “stress” is relative. The “positive” form of stress (eustress) gets a lot less attention than the “negative” form of stress (distress).
“Become a possibilitarian. No matter how dark things seem to be or actually are, raise your sights and see possibilities — always see them, for they’re always there.”
Norman Vincent Peale
Obviously folks WANT eustress – but that tends to get marketed as “fun” or “happiness.”
It becomes a truism that the only thing we can truly “control” is out attitude towards “stress.” “Life” is gonna happen, all we can really control is how we choose to react.
Set the “way back machine” to 100 years ago and we would find this “life reaction” automatically influenced by “religion.” “People of the book” might have referenced the “wisdom books” (e.g. Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) – all of which are worthy of study.
Job tells us that “Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble.” (Job 14:1) but also “Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.” (Job 14:15) — which could be examples of reacting to “distress” and then “eustress”
.. and then of course this quote from Proverbs:
A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.
Proverbs 17:22
Humor
Today the “four noble truths” of Buddhism are on my mind – with the point being that “all humor is based on pain” sounds a lot like “life is suffering.”
It is more accurate to say that life is “stress” NOT “life is pain/suffering.”
I automatically reject the statement “ALL humor is based on pain” – because “ALL humor is based on ‘life’” – which is “stress” NOT “pain”
Pain and pleasure are also “relative” terms to a certain degree – both are “sensations” but perceiving them as feeling “pleasant” or “unpleasant” requires some context
If we divide the world between “Optimists” on one side and “Pessimists” on the other and charted the general population on that line – we would (probably) see a classic bell curve. Most people would be in the “middle” and very few would be on the extremes — BUT my guess is that most “comedians” are found in the “extremes” – either “optimist” or “pessimist.”
The point being that I understand WHY someone might say “all humor is based on pain” – not being a “pessimist” (or Buddhist) I simply disagree …
Humor has trouble translating between generations in part because we have to “identify” with the subject to appreciate the humor.
e.g. William Shakespeare has a lot of jokes in his play – that audiences 400 years ago probably thought were hilarious – but need to be translated to modern audiences. In the 21st century Charlie Chaplin’s movies are still “humorous” but not as funny as they were to early 20th century audiences.
Any “topical” humor ceases to be humorous when the “topic” is no longer “topical” e.g. Jackie Mason telling jokes about Ted Kennedy and Henry Kissinger – if you have no idea who Ted Kennedy and Henry Kissinger are, Mr Mason’s delivery is still humorous – but if you recognize the impersonation/truth in the joke it is much funnier
hmm, so maybe all humor is based on truth? The only characters routinely allowed to tell the “truth” in Mr Shakespeare’s plays are the “fools”/court jesters — or maybe Mel Brooks as stand up philosopher is the definitive example …
Star Wars
Any “long running” series is subject to the impact of nostalgia.
e.g. If you have a preference/opinion on which actor did “James Bond” (or Batman or Superman or Spider-Man) best – that opinion is influenced (positive of negative) by the actor/movies that were released when you were “maturing”
SO I was a little surprised when I started hearing folks say that they preferred the “Star Wars prequels” to the original trilogy.
I don’t dislike the “prequels” but think they are obviously not as good as the original trilogy – which may or may not be “true” BUT is 100% influenced by nostalgia on my part.
As I have aged – I am willing to admit that “The Empire Strikes Back”/Episode V is a “better movie” (plot, character development, fx) than “Star Wars” 1977/”A New Hope”/Episode IV – BUT I still prefer Episode IV
With MY bias fully disclosed – I REALLY didn’t like Episodes VIII and IX.
From a storytelling point of view the “middle chapter” tends to be the “strongest” part of most “trilogies” — but ALL three movies being “equally good” is rare
Notice that should be read “intentional trilogy” as in a story told in three parts, NOT just a collection of 3 movies starring the same character
e.g. of Episodes I – II – III – my preference goes III (best), II, I (least favorite),
“Star Wars”/Episode IV stands by itself – mostly because there was no guarantee that the movie would be popular enough to have “sequels” – BUT George Lucas had a general idea for three trilogies, which is why Episodes V and VI become 1 story …
I’ve heard some folks try to argue that Harrison Ford wasn’t happy and that his characters fate at the end of “Empire” was a way for George Lucas to potentially “write him out of the story” — which is implausible at best.
No, Mr Ford didn’t want his career to be forever linked to “Star Wars” and avoided to a lot of publicity — but he wasn’t “Harrison Ford film legend” in 1980 when Empire was released.
Mr Lucas was trying to recreate the old “serial movie” cliff-hanger feel with “Empire” – i.e. he knew there would be an “Episode VI” when making “Episode V.”
The Episode VI ending was just an example of “expert storytelling” and “good business” at a time when “sequels” were common but tended to be “back for more cash” projects rather than “good storytelling.”
e.g. did anyone think that Marvel was actually cleaning up the MCU at the end of “Avengers: Infinity War?” No, there was ALWAYS going to be one more movie that would modify the cliff-hanger ending …
Meanwhile back at the ranch …
I liked Episode VII — in part because “Star Wars” was slapped on the side of the box – but it was entertaining, and “good enough.”
No, I didn’t “connect” with any of the new characters introduced – but this is where that generational shift comes into play. The “Disney sequels” made $billions but the “box office” decreased for both Episode VIII AND then Episode IX
(btw if you rank the Star Wars franchise movies buy adjust for inflation box office — Episode IV is a $billion ahead of the second place movie Episode VII)
I REALLY wanted to like Episode VIII — but it is just tripe with “Star Wars” slapped on the side. My problem was not with the new characters – it was the ridiculous story full of plot holes. Same with Episode IX – though I went in expecting the movie to be terrible and only saw it in the theater out of a need to “see how they mess up the ending”
BUT was the original trilogy or the prequels “woke”? where the Disney sequels “woke”?
What do you mean “woke”?
“Woke” tends to be used as a negative/insult by folks of one political persuasion and a badge of honor by another political persuasion.
TO me “woke” and b.s. (NOT “bachelor of science”) are in the same category — i.e. b.s. isn’t concerned with “truth” so much as convincing an audience that the spreader of b.s. believes something – e.g. the speaker wants the audience to believe that they (speaker and audience) share the same values – though the speaker doesn’t come right out and say what they think/believe.
“Woke” is about pushing an “agenda” more than actually discussing ideas/concepts — with the implication being that EVERYONE must accept the “agenda” and of course you are wrong/stupid/evil if you don’t blindly accept the “agenda”
SO did episodes VIII and IX have an “agenda” — well, no. They were just terrible storytelling.
Notice that “strong female characters” does NOT equal “woke.” Even “strong female characters” combined with “man child idiot fool” male characters is NOT woke – just bad storytelling.
i.e. “Princess Leia” is obviously a strong leader – but she is archetype “mother”/”elder sister” in Episode IV – which is NOT “woke” by any definition
I like to point out that Luke’s journey from “innocence” to “experience” is reflected in his clothing – i.e. he is in “all white” (innocent/pure) in Episode IV – kind of “grey” in V, and then in all black in Episode VI (experienced/mature)
Mr Lucas famously had Carrie Fisher “taped up” to keep her from jiggling in Episode IV – so Leia’s arc is a “maturation”/awakening of a different kind than Luke’s — Leia goes from chaste/all in white/funny hair style in “A New Hope” to “slave girl uniform” in Jedi – and all of the bickering with Han was (probably) supposed to be “suppressed sexual tension” – like an old Howard Hawks movie
I could go on for another thousand words on what I think is “wrong” with Episodes VIII and IX — part of it is about what “leadership” ACTUALLY looks like (umm, which is NOT – go over there for no good reason, then turn around and come back, all while pretending that being a “strong leader” means NOT communicating the plan to subordinates — that isn’t “leadership” that is incompetence — but I digress)
The biggest flaw with the Disney Sequels is how they treated the core trio from the original trilogy — i.e. all that bickering wasn’t sexual tension, it was just bickering – and of course Luke sees his nephew have a bad dream and decides to run away and sulk — disappointing/bad storytelling? yes. “woke”? well, no.
The fact that ALL of the male characters are in “man child” mode waiting for “strong female to tell them what to do” might be an example of incompetent “story by committee” – but PROBABLY not “woke” (unless the agenda was “emasculation”)
ANYWAY
While I’m at it – I didn’t make it past the first couple episodes of the Disney+ series “Andor” (apparently “remove all the humor” and/or be dark and depressing == “adult story telling” for someone at Disney) and the “Obi Wan” mini series was another exercise in unwatchable tripe
… but of course YMMV
Leave a Reply