How Comedy Makes Us Better People Summary

In Alain de Botton’s book, Status Anxiety, he claims that a humorist’s purpose is “not merely to entertain, but to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” Humorists have more leeway when discussing controversial topics, thus they serve a vital function in society; however, humorists also have other intentions such as entertaining their audiences and earning revenue.

Humor has become manifested into nearly all aspects of the secular world. Whether it be in comics, writings, or television, some form of comedy is sure to be seen on a regular basis. It seems the world today depends on a good laugh every now and then, and Alain de Botton argued the purpose of this in his book Status Anxiety. He concluded that humorists are more than just a form of entertainment; They "convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly". These men and women are granted some degree of leeway to speak freely and candidly on ultimately any subject for the preservation of societal stability. Their representation of public sentiment results in the people feeling as if what they long to say is finally being heard on a larger platform. Humorists serve the vital role of being a true reflection of public opinion; however, they are not immune to

Perhaps the most important reading from this class, I feel, is the Gray, Jones, and Thompson article on satire. Although the seemingly most popular article of the class, I argue that its popularity strives from a detachment of more traditional television sources, providing a new form of cultural engagement and citizenship. As trust in clear-leaing broadcasting systems fades, satire and parody emerges as substitute, filling in the spaces of discontent and misrepresentation felt by audiences. Shows like the Daily Show “defamiliarize” norms embedded into our social-political behavior, allowing a ‘step back’, as it were, and on an individual scale philosophically scrutinize them (Gray, 9). Most significantly, elements of satire and parody facilitates

Humor, for many, is a cheap laugh and a way to brighten someone's day. But for others, humor goes beyond that. Often times in today's world, humor is used to convey messages about dangerous or impossible to state topics. Society allows humorists to speak about unpalatable topics since the delivery of the message is masked. Humorists take difficult messages and use creative humor to make them more accepted into society.

Political satire is ubiquitous in United States. Social media are presenting uncountable numbers of political satires and tweets. As Iain Ellis, who has a Ph.D in American Culture Studies, said, “Today’s political humor infects, inflects, and injects into our national state of affairs”(Ellis 150). In relation to Ellis’ quote, the idea of utilizing humor as a political tool subverted my perception on humor, and such utilization has spread through not only in democratic countries, but also in countries like Egypt. Whether political humor and satires are beneficial for the society has been a controversial topic among scholars, politicians, and philosophers. Ramon Lopez, a fourth year Ph.D student studying political theory, proposes

The concept of humor inciting change continues to be disagreed upon globally. Whereas mordant humor demands mental depth to understand the purpose, blatant impunity messages are accessible and easily created by humorists. Thus, humorists that are vital to society often rely upon humor with an underlying message. As a result, de Botton’s claim of humorists serving society is true, provided that the message is dangerous to state blatantly.

“Without [comedy] blood demons will come and take our children” (qtd. in McKee). When asked how important comedy is due to the political and social climate of the United States, this is how comedian Patton Oswalt chose to respond. Although not serious in nature, his response perfectly encapsulates how serious issues can be tackled in comedic ways. In this analysis, I will consider The Comedians of Comedy (Michael Blieden, 2005) and argue that through the recording of events as they occur, interviews, and problem solving, the documentary uses humor to promote liberal politics while identifying social problems plaguing the United States.

Mike Celestino is a small-time director and comedy fan, who looks at the inner workings of comedy to reflect on its effect on the shaping of American culture in his documentary, “That’s Not Funny.” The audience isn’t specific in nature, just anyone who has ears and an interest in comedy. His purpose was to argue the value of comedy, and the reflection of it on our lives. Analyzing the trends of comedy from the early times of film until now, the documentary expresses censorship and its importance on the art form. Cultural change is viewed through his demonstration of comedy history, the perception of the comedy, and successes and failures of each. Bringing in some of the largest names in stand-up ties his argument to the use of laughter to

As a result, people’s demand for comedy is increasing dramatically which means more and more people are going to watch a comedy. Also, some successful comedians such as Louis C.K. and some famous shows or programs distributed different topics of comedies on the internet and get millions plays and replies. So, when comedians shared experiences and thoughts about different classes, races or other taboos such as religious and LGBT, not only the audience in the show but a huge amount of people will watch them and maybe influenced by their opinions.

“You grow up the day you have your first real laugh – at yourself” --> Ethel Barrymore.

Humour is seen as a means to relieve stress, reduce negative emotions (Alston, 2007) such as anxiety, tension, depression

If you are a fan of any kind of comedy, most likely you’ve heard someone make a joke about something that doesn’t quite sit right with you. Is this person a bigoted oppressor who gets off on laughing at the misfortune of others? Most likely not. More often than not this person is just trying to do their job as a comedian, making light of everyday situations. While we may not necessarily agree with the way they view things or find their outlook offensive, it is important to evaluate why we feel this way. Presently, we are in an era of heightened political correctness and whether or not this is to our benefit I will leave up to your own judgement. Regardless, it is important that we maintain agency over both the media we consume and our own judgements on it. All this being said I plan to explore the field of mainstream comedy and how tragedies, on both a national and global scale, can play a role in how we consume comedy and it’s effect on us.

Comedy is a fickle medium. It is hard for a comedian to predict how an audience or individuals will react to a joke. Satire is even more uncertain due the medium’s socio-political nature. The purpose of satire can be misconstrued due to its tendency to obscure or simplify the point it is trying to make for the sake of a joke. In Mathew Bevis’ “Taking Liberties”, he argues that individuals with different world views can interpret a satirical piece in very different ways. In this paper, I shall use the satirical sketch “A Politically Correct Minute” by the Royal Canadian Air Farce to argue that satire becomes and ineffective tool in conveying a political message due to Bevis’ argument that the viewer shapes the meaning of the sketch. The creator might have tried to establish a moral high ground, but it is hard to defend due to the medium being reliant on the viewers sensibilities over the creator’s intent, thus making us unsure if a moral high ground actually exists.

Some advertisements use humor to make the viewers want to rematch the advertisements and enjoy it as it gives off positive feelings. In other occasions, ads like Spotify create a negative atmosphere to provoke the person to buy a Spotify membership since Spotify repeats the same advertisement every thirty minutes of free music that is played. These two types of techniques are useful and effective since they drill the commercial’s purpose in the individual’s mind even though they might receive different feedbacks.

Resistance that exploits the non-seriousness of humour conjures images of bombastic colour and the carnivalesque, from the giant ‘puppets’ of anti-globalisation protests to clowns mocking the Pope. Yet as Barry Sanders suggests in his musing that, ‘play is so basic to animals – humans and nonhumans alike – why shouldn’t it inform the very foundations of communication itself?’, the relationship between humour/play and life is fundamental and generative (cited in Shepard 2005, 64). This essay considers that the simultaneously non-seriousness and life-generative nature of humour makes it a particularly effective, and indeed potentially indispensable, tool during micropolitical resistance -- especially in the face of capitalism’s intimidating